From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932134AbcGCSt7 (ORCPT ); Sun, 3 Jul 2016 14:49:59 -0400 Received: from vps0.lunn.ch ([178.209.37.122]:35050 "EHLO vps0.lunn.ch" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752843AbcGCSt4 (ORCPT ); Sun, 3 Jul 2016 14:49:56 -0400 Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2016 20:49:45 +0200 From: Andrew Lunn To: Russell King - ARM Linux Cc: Jon Masters , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Jon Mason Subject: Re: [RFC 0/1] ARM: print MHz in /proc/cpuinfo Message-ID: <20160703184945.GB9421@lunn.ch> References: <1465333713-14339-1-git-send-email-jon.mason@broadcom.com> <20160607221809.GP1041@n2100.armlinux.org.uk> <32b30c50-4712-568e-4044-9f533ca497b2@jonmasters.org> <20160703165431.GL1041@n2100.armlinux.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160703165431.GL1041@n2100.armlinux.org.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Jul 03, 2016 at 05:54:31PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > 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 Since it is a float, how about using the value NaN? I think that nicely summaries it is a useless value. However, i agree, we first need a technical justification for needing a value at all. Jon: What happened when you posted a patch removing this value from x86? That is clearly an alternative to adding it to ARM, especially if everybody agrees it is a useless value. Andrew