Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Thu, 27 Jun 2013 14:32:57 +0530 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v4 2/7] cpufreq: Add boost frequency support in core | From | Viresh Kumar <> |
| |
On 26 June 2013 18:24, Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@samsung.com> wrote: > On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 16:24:32 +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: >> On 19 June 2013 22:42, Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@samsung.com> 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.
|  |