Received: by 2002:ac0:aed5:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id t21csp4937697imb; Thu, 7 Mar 2019 04:14:49 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwE8s7xI16d+e6HCQn1EJyErpF1pQLXi9MgGEecF4uvGTidVJKWgaK6H6TAKkr2p+DUGcqX X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:9a95:: with SMTP id w21mr12493698plp.118.1551960889427; Thu, 07 Mar 2019 04:14:49 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1551960889; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=HXd0UEwbQG+jD0EPC3T/+sCrN/dbM6NEnnZIV58M3hjYvbXESJrvExmbrohe3Ks1F1 7ENdS2sJcgoGFyzCVUuQQzRG5xfYszPrxXI/pLULTdqdL18CPKjWrAE9+ywaKX+CuH8Y gCHjSet3etfsNNht/7L0FqVF6SzrfGc6a2aZlT+EsXdq9EPHBvyM3itMcKPiv15QQGCw pHtYbFZzA6MPuF8jWkuQelvV6qipHwX2GnvGieh6OG/QpNnzc39iXfvJzd0sbudjVOVE XpMUH1zg04nfZqyPocOBoaTUfOq+VkbemvWPUOLSs3+gxnq/uAtrDvEXeEAxqonLeX07 4ItA== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:user-agent:in-reply-to :content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc :to:from:date; bh=LPSGzJMcu8FEuPDcGgj+A3zBBk0UVY+Lw1Ceb0ZQQtg=; b=rOw83s8NPIuLUzon4mK20ai5GhNZY+Ww/mXKqmZx0NZag74/Tx8DMTpq9D74Bvf9VU wT+1i6IcVivT+JVhWIetI/hPhPwFpks8RC79vBqO61ddD8BrIh5k8hIRS/u6bnjyxV1J nsXiElvqLv2kDW4Ds1D48KCphHfpee9KKmbEVtn2ODuqHPJSEwfmFTpw780rVC33GdEU Wx6Cqj3L2KuMEiOx5rQqTjvDGbtOVNn3a3WfcM8I1aUdFoFuxG/EsQ9pp0tWUBwnlKC2 Y3ys8nX/gyLSR6vq7L4sF5iFjeYKWlF54E0GEiRvGW0/4YZfHK5FxoajTLZRNcGkKmpU tj2A== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id q1si4239050plb.229.2019.03.07.04.14.32; Thu, 07 Mar 2019 04:14:49 -0800 (PST) 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; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726286AbfCGMOH (ORCPT + 99 others); Thu, 7 Mar 2019 07:14:07 -0500 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:44590 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726159AbfCGMOH (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Mar 2019 07:14:07 -0500 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.72.51.249]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E68980D; Thu, 7 Mar 2019 04:14:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from queper01-lin (queper01-lin.cambridge.arm.com [10.1.195.48]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id ABF183F703; Thu, 7 Mar 2019 04:14:04 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2019 12:14:03 +0000 From: Quentin Perret To: Juri Lelli Cc: Lingutla Chandrasekhar , 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: <20190307121400.cmgymfbphguvlaoo@queper01-lin> 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> <20190307095750.GD29753@localhost.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190307095750.GD29753@localhost.localdomain> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20171215 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thursday 07 Mar 2019 at 10:57:50 (+0100), Juri Lelli wrote: > 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. Right, now is probably the time to give it a go before folks start depending on it. And if I am wrong (and that happens more often than I'd like unfortunately :-)) and there are users of that thing, then the revert should be trivial. Thanks, Quentin