> -Original Message-
> From: Hunt, David
> > [Reshma]: Do we need to return -1 here and in other failure scenarios
> > below.
>
>
> Hi Reshma,
>
> We might do, but that's not something I had intended to address in this patch
> set.
>
> We should look at this in a future patch, OK?
On 29/4/2021 11:34 AM, Pattan, Reshma wrote:
-Original Message-
From: dev On Behalf Of David Hunt
+TEST_POWER_SYSFILE_SCALING_FREQ, lcore_id) < 0) {
return 0;
[Reshma]: Do we need to return -1 here and in other failure scenarios below.
Hi Reshma,
We might do, but that's not s
> -Original Message-
> From: dev On Behalf Of David Hunt
> + TEST_POWER_SYSFILE_SCALING_FREQ, lcore_id) < 0) {
> return 0;
[Reshma]: Do we need to return -1 here and in other failure scenarios below.
> }
> f = fopen(fullpath, "r");
> if (f
Different drivers present the current cpu core frequency in different
sysfs iles. Some present it in cpuinfo_cur_freq, some in scaling_cur_freq,
and some actually present it in both.
This patch attempts to open one, if that fails, tries the other.
Fixes: d550a8cc31f3 ("app/test: enhance power man
4 matches
Mail list logo
