On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 2:24 PM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.ku...@linaro.org> wrote: > On 6 June 2016 at 17:40, Rafael J. Wysocki <r...@rjwysocki.net> wrote: >> On Monday, June 06, 2016 09:22:31 AM Viresh Kumar wrote: > >>> I agree with that, though that requires larger changes across multiple >>> sites. >> >> What changes and where? > > s/larger/some :) > > So we can change all the callers of cpufreq_frequency_table_target(),
But why? It just works as a static inline wrapper around cpufreq_find_index_l() for the code in question after this patch, doesn't it? So if the caller knows it will always ask for RELATION_L, why bother with using the wrapper? Also I'm wondering about the cpufreq_for_each_valid_entry() used all over. Can't the things be arranged so all of the entries are valid?
