On 20/07/15 23:07, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Monday, July 20, 2015 03:22:09 PM Sudeep Holla wrote:
On 09/07/15 19:04, Ashwin Chaugule wrote:
This driver utilizes the methods introduced in the previous patch - "ACPI: Introduce CPU performance controls using CPPC" and enables usage with existing CPUFreq governors.
Signed-off-by: Ashwin Chaugule ashwin.chaugule@linaro.org Reviewed-by: Al Stone al.stone@linaro.org
drivers/cpufreq/Kconfig.arm | 16 ++++ drivers/cpufreq/Makefile | 2 + drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c | 197 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 3 files changed, 215 insertions(+) create mode 100644 drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/Kconfig.arm b/drivers/cpufreq/Kconfig.arm index 4f3dbc8..578384d 100644 --- a/drivers/cpufreq/Kconfig.arm +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/Kconfig.arm @@ -272,3 +272,19 @@ config ARM_PXA2xx_CPUFREQ This add the CPUFreq driver support for Intel PXA2xx SOCs.
If in doubt, say N.
+config ACPI_CPPC_CPUFREQ
- tristate "CPUFreq driver based on the ACPI CPPC spec"
- depends on ACPI_CPPC_LIB
- default n
- help
This adds a CPUFreq driver which uses CPPC methodsas described in the ACPIv5.1 spec. CPPC stands forCollaborative Processor Performance Controls. Itis based on an abstract continuous scale of CPUperformance values which allows the remote powerprocessor to flexibly optimize for power andperformance. CPPC relies on power management firmwarefor its operation.Why is this ARM specific ? It might be used only on ARM but doesn't mean it should be visible only on ARM ACPI systems.
Why bother people with considering Kconfig options that are useless to them?
I agree to some extent, but main worry is that we are then making these features architecture specific while ACPI is supposed to be architecture agnostic. I was just trying to avoid doing so.
Regards, Sudeep