From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753560Ab3F0JIP (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Jun 2013 05:08:15 -0400 Received: from mail-oa0-f47.google.com ([209.85.219.47]:39218 "EHLO mail-oa0-f47.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752502Ab3F0JIA (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Jun 2013 05:08:00 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20130626145412.1e9bfa63@amdc308.digital.local> References: <1370502472-7249-1-git-send-email-l.majewski@samsung.com> <1371661969-7660-1-git-send-email-l.majewski@samsung.com> <1371661969-7660-3-git-send-email-l.majewski@samsung.com> <20130626145412.1e9bfa63@amdc308.digital.local> Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 14:32:57 +0530 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/7] cpufreq: Add boost frequency support in core From: Viresh Kumar To: Lukasz Majewski Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocky" , "cpufreq@vger.kernel.org" , Linux PM list , Vincent Guittot , Jonghwa Lee , Myungjoo Ham , linux-kernel , Lukasz Majewski , Andre Przywara , Daniel Lezcano , Kukjin Kim , Zhang Rui , Eduardo Valentin , t.figa@samsung.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 26 June 2013 18:24, Lukasz Majewski wrote: > On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 16:24:32 +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: >> On 19 June 2013 22:42, Lukasz Majewski wrote: >> > +static ssize_t store_boost(struct kobject *kobj, struct attribute >> > *attr, >> > + const char *buf, size_t count) >> > +{ >> > + int ret, enable; >> > + >> > + ret = sscanf(buf, "%d", &enable); >> > + if (ret != 1 || enable < 0 || enable > 1) >> > + return -EINVAL; >> > + >> > + if (cpufreq_boost_trigger_state(enable)) { >> > + pr_err("%s: Cannot enable boost!\n", __func__); >> > + return -EINVAL; >> > + } >> >> Probably do boost_enabled = true here. > > I would prefer to set boot_enabled at > cpufreq_boost_trigger_state() method. It is closer to the > cpufreq_driver->enable_boost and cpufreq_boost_trigger_state_sw(); > functions, which do change the freq. I said that as this will be more inclined towards the purpose of this routine. This routine should store boost as show_boost() is returning it. So, what would be better is if you just return 0 or err from cpufreq_boost_trigger_state() and then set boost here. This will also solve your problem where you revert back to older boost value for failure cases. >> > + ret = cpufreq_driver->enable_boost(state); > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > I would prefer to change this > name to enable_boost_hw > It is more informative, since it is tailored to hw based boost (Intel). Ok >> > + else >> > + ret = cpufreq_boost_trigger_state_sw(); then why not enable_boost_sw() here? that would be more relevant. > I will rewrite it as follow: > > if (ret) > boost_enabled = 0; > > write_unlock_irqrestore(&cpufreq_driver_lock, flags); > pr_debug("%s: cpufreq BOOST %s\n", __func__, > state ? "enabled" : "disabled"); So, you will not print error but current state? Probably printing error is better.