There is a description of some of the sysfs files.  However, there are some
that are not mentioned in the documentation, so add them to the user's guide.
Signed-off-by: NDarrick J. Wong <djwong@us.ibm.com>
Cc: Venkatesh Pallipadi <venkatesh.pallipadi@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: NAndrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: NDave Jones <davej@redhat.com>

There have been patches hanging around for ages to add support for
cpufreq to PXA255 processors.  It's about time we applied one.
Signed-off-by: NRussell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>

I just stumbled on this bug/feature, this is how to reproduce it:

# echo 450000 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/scaling_min_freq
# echo 450000 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/scaling_max_freq
# echo powersave > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/scaling_governor
# cpufreq-info -p
450000 450000 powersave
# echo 1800000 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/scaling_min_freq ; echo $?
0
# cpufreq-info -p
450000 450000 powersave

Here it is. The kernel refuses to set a min_freq higher than the
max_freq but it allows a max_freq lower than min_freq (lowering min_freq
also).

This behaviour is pretty straightforward (but undocumented) and it
doesn't return an error altough failing to accomplish the requested
action (set min_freq).
The problem (IMO) is basically that userspace is not allowed to set a
full policy atomically while the kernel always does that thus it must
enforce an ordering on operations.

The attached patch returns -EINVAL if trying to increase frequencies
starting from scaling_min_freq and documents the correct ordering of writes.
Signed-off-by: NMattia Dongili <malattia@linux.it>
Signed-off-by: Dominik Brodowski <linux at dominikbrodowski.net>
Signed-off-by: NDave Jones <davej@redhat.com>

--

Initial git repository build. I'm not bothering with the full history,
even though we have it. We can create a separate "historical" git
archive of that later if we want to, and in the meantime it's about
3.2GB when imported into git - space that would just make the early
git days unnecessarily complicated, when we don't have a lot of good
infrastructure for it.

Let it rip!