From: Russell King - ARM Linux <email@example.com> To: Jon Masters <firstname.lastname@example.org> Cc: Jon Mason <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com Subject: Re: [RFC 0/1] ARM: print MHz in /proc/cpuinfo Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2016 17:54:31 +0100 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20160703165431.GL1041@n2100.armlinux.org.uk> (raw) In-Reply-To: <firstname.lastname@example.org> On Sat, Jul 02, 2016 at 07:58:00PM -0400, Jon Masters wrote: > Agreed. But we'll still be coming back to ensure this information is > presented to users. I pointed out to ARM about 3-4 years ago that this > was going to bite us. It is now biting us, and we will ensure that > useless data is provided where it is on x86 for identical experience by > users. That is unless or until x86 users do something else always. Our > (separate) case will use DMI or ACPI for the same kind of data. Right, so having read all your email, there's no reason why we couldn't just print: cpu MHz : 99999999.999 and be done with it. Sure, it doesn't reflect the reality, but if people are going to be idiots with it, why not play their game with it to show how stupid it is. I don't buy "it's biting us" - I see no evidence of it actually "biting" anyone. No one has reported any failures in the last 20 years due to this missing - and even so as I've already said, it would _not_ be a regression because that information has never been provided on 32-bit ARM. Moreover, I asked what these applications were that are affected by the lack of us providing this number. I'm still waiting to hear that, and I noticed that even you skipped over providing that information which I asked for, instead giving a hand-wavey answer based on marketing (spit) people doing stupid things. Please, try to come up with a _technical_ justification. I really don't want to make decisions based on marketing shite which I completely and utterly despise. -- RMK's Patch system: http://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/ FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 9.6Mbps down 400kbps up according to speedtest.net.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-07-03 16:55 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2016-06-07 21:08 Jon Mason 2016-06-07 21:08 ` [RFC 1/1] " Jon Mason 2016-06-08 8:34 ` Sudeep Holla 2016-06-08 19:31 ` Jon Mason 2016-06-09 9:09 ` Sudeep Holla 2016-06-09 17:36 ` Jon Mason 2016-06-07 22:18 ` [RFC 0/1] " Russell King - ARM Linux 2016-06-07 22:58 ` Jon Mason 2016-07-02 23:58 ` Jon Masters 2016-07-03 16:54 ` Russell King - ARM Linux [this message] 2016-07-03 18:49 ` Andrew Lunn 2016-07-03 19:10 ` Russell King - ARM Linux 2016-07-18 10:02 ` Pavel Machek
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=20160703165431.GL1041@n2100.armlinux.org.uk \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --subject='Re: [RFC 0/1] ARM: print MHz in /proc/cpuinfo' \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).