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;
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpupower : Handle set and info subcommands for powerpc
To:     Thomas Renninger <trenn@suse.de>
Cc:     shuah <shuah@kernel.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
        "Gautham R. Shenoy" <ego@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
References: <20190911095424.49605-1-huntbag@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <3326dc53-f8a1-dd7b-5ae8-b86ef5ef8b24@kernel.org>
 <f43715dd-219b-d3ae-58a9-f343fe745d7d@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <4161437.KdBApSEpf3@skinner.arch.suse.de>
From:   Abhishek <huntbag@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:   Thu, 12 Sep 2019 15:53:42 +0530
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4161437.KdBApSEpf3@skinner.arch.suse.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Message-Id: <17ce06dd-9baf-e0d1-df64-4b81787b2000@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi,


On 09/12/2019 03:46 PM, Thomas Renninger wrote:
> On Thursday, September 12, 2019 11:43:40 AM CEST Abhishek wrote:
>> Hi Shuah,
>>
>> Thanks for the review. Few comments below.
> ...
>
>> Since these two options are not being used by any other architecture
>> except x86, I suggest these options should not even be shown for
>> other architecture. So we can do something like this in cpupower.c :
>>
>> static struct cmd_struct commands[] = {
>>            .............
>> +#if defined (__x86_64__) || defined (__i386__)
>>           { "set",        cmd_set,        1    },
>>           { "info",        cmd_info,        0    },
>> +#endif
>>           ..............
>>
>> Is this Okay?
> No, I expected you to add something meaningful for Power case...

Haha. Will add something meaningful later...
(One of the suggestion has already been given by you)
>
> Just kidding. If this works without any side-effects in not x86 case, this
> approach seem to be the best solution for now.
>
> Thanks.
>
>    Thomas
>
>

-- Abhishek