On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 15:34:02 +0530 Viresh Kumar viresh.ku...@linaro.org wrote, > On 4 July 2013 14:20, Lukasz Majewski <l.majew...@samsung.com> wrote: > > static void __init acpi_cpufreq_boost_init(void) > > @@ -953,33 +937,22 @@ static void __init > > acpi_cpufreq_boost_init(void) if (!msrs) > > return; > > > > - boost_supported = true; > > - boost_enabled = boost_state(0); > > + cpufreq_set_boost_enabled(boost_state(0)); > > + acpi_cpufreq_driver.boost_supported = true; > > You are again doing the same mistake. Boost must be > always supported for acpi-cpufreq with read permissions, as it was > earlier.
The boost attribute is exported to sysfs only when boost is supported by the driver (as we had agreed earlier). The problem here is that the original acpi-cpufreq.c file had two static flags: static bool boost_enabled, boost_supported; Both of them are not needed at acpi-cpufreq, since: 1. boost_enabled is defined at cpufreq.c core file. 2. boost_supported is defined at struct cpufreq_driver (acpi_cpufreq_driver). I've reused the boost_supported from acpi_cpufreq_driver structure to avoid code duplication. -- Best regards, Lukasz Majewski Samsung R&D Institute Poland (SRPOL) | Linux Platform Group -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
