When using HWP, some of the returned data is not applicable. In that
case, we should just omit it to avoid confusing the user. So switch to
printing the base and turbo frequencies since those are relevant to HWP.
Similarly, stop printing the CPU frequencies since those do not apply.
Signed-off-b
On 01.05.2023 21:30, Jason Andryuk wrote:
> When using HWP, some of the returned data is not applicable. In that
> case, we should just omit it to avoid confusing the user. So switch to
> printing the base and turbo frequencies since those are relevant to HWP.
> Similarly, stop printing the CPU f
On Thu, May 4, 2023 at 10:35 AM Jan Beulich wrote:
>
> On 01.05.2023 21:30, Jason Andryuk wrote:
> > When using HWP, some of the returned data is not applicable. In that
> > case, we should just omit it to avoid confusing the user. So switch to
> > printing the base and turbo frequencies since t
On 04.05.2023 19:00, Jason Andryuk wrote:
> On Thu, May 4, 2023 at 10:35 AM Jan Beulich wrote:
>>
>> On 01.05.2023 21:30, Jason Andryuk wrote:
>>> When using HWP, some of the returned data is not applicable. In that
>>> case, we should just omit it to avoid confusing the user. So switch to
>>> p
On Fri, May 5, 2023 at 3:04 AM Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> @@ -720,10 +721,15 @@ static void print_cpufreq_para(int cpuid, struct
> >>> xc_get_cpufreq_para *p_cpufreq)
> >>> printf(" %d", p_cpufreq->affected_cpus[i]);
> >>> printf("\n");
> >>>
> >>> -printf("cpuinfo frequency:
