Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 7 Mar 2019 10:57:50 +0100
From:   Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@gmail.com>
To:     Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com>
Cc:     Lingutla Chandrasekhar <clingutla@codeaurora.org>,
        sudeep.holla@arm.com, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com,
        gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, will.deacon@arm.com,
        catalin.marinas@arm.com, morten.rasmussen@arm.com,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, jeremy.linton@arm.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] arch_topology: Make cpu_capacity sysfs node as
 ready-only
Message-ID: <20190307095750.GD29753@localhost.localdomain>
References: <20190306152254.GB19434@e105550-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
 <1551886073-16217-1-git-send-email-clingutla@codeaurora.org>
 <20190307072856.GC29753@localhost.localdomain>
 <20190307093116.slvugyeos46kl3et@queper01-lin>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190307093116.slvugyeos46kl3et@queper01-lin>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi,

On 07/03/19 09:31, Quentin Perret wrote:
> Hi Juri,
> 
> On Thursday 07 Mar 2019 at 08:28:56 (+0100), Juri Lelli wrote:
> > There are cases in which this needs to be RW, as recently discussed
> > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20181123135807.GA14964@e107155-lin/
> 
> Yeah there's that problem when you can't fix your DT ... But I guess
> this is a problem for _all_ values in the DT, not just capacities right ?
> But these other values, I'd expected they just can't be fixed from
> userspace most of the time, you just have to live with sub-optimal
> values. So I don't find it unreasonable to do that for capacities too.
> 
> > IMHO, if the core_sibling assumption doesn't work in all cases, one
> > should be looking into fixing it, rather than making this RO.
> 
> It's just that this thing keeps causing more harm than it helps IMO.
> It's quite severely broken ATM, and it prevents us from assuming
> 'stable' capacity values in places were we'd like to do so (e.g. EAS).
> 
> And I'm not aware of a single platform where this is used. So, I'm
> personally all for removing the write capability if we can.

If people think it's best to simply make this RO, I won't be against it.
Just pointed out a conversation we recently had. Guess we could also
make it RW again (properly) in the future if somebody complains.

Best,

- Juri