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 15:04:07 +0000
From:   Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
To:     Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com>
Cc:     Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@gmail.com>,
        Lingutla Chandrasekhar <clingutla@codeaurora.org>,
        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: <20190307150151.GA5778@e107155-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>
 <20190307121400.cmgymfbphguvlaoo@queper01-lin>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190307121400.cmgymfbphguvlaoo@queper01-lin>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Mar 07, 2019 at 12:14:03PM +0000, Quentin Perret wrote:
> 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.
>

+1 on all the points above ;)(I may also be getting things wrong here
but I am not convinced that we can resolve the issue for all the ARM
vendor possible combinations we may have to address)

We should come up with some *magical* cpumask that we can use if we
want to retain this write capability. And only way I see we can do that
is using DT which in turn eliminates the need to have write capability
for this sysfs.

So I am going to ack the $subject patch for now.

--
Regards,
Sudeep