On 27-01-21, 10:11, Lukasz Luba wrote: > > > On 1/27/21 9:15 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > On 26-01-21, 10:39, Lukasz Luba wrote: > > > As it's a RFC, it still misses the cpufreq sysfs implementation, but would > > > be addressed if all agree. > > > > Not commenting on the whole stuff but if you ever need something for > > cpufreq, it > > is already there. Look for these. > > > > store_one(scaling_min_freq, min); > > store_one(scaling_max_freq, max); > > > > Hopefully they will work just fine. > > > > So, can I assume you don't mind to plumb it into these two?
No :) As I said at the top, I am not commenting on the whole thing yet, may need to think over a bit and Rafael will comment as well. -- viresh
