On Monday, June 19, 2017 02:28:21 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Friday, June 16, 2017 09:49:00 PM Len Brown wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 8:30 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <r...@rjwysocki.net> > > wrote: > > > On Wednesday, June 07, 2017 07:39:13 PM Len Brown wrote: > > >> From: Len Brown <len.br...@intel.com> > > [cut] > > > > > > > I wonder if we could change intel_pstate_get() to simply return > > > aperfmperf_khz_on_cpu(cpu_num)? > > > > > > That would allow us to avoid the extra branch here and get rid of the > > > #ifdef x86 from the header. > > > > The reason I put the hook here is specifically so that the same > > code would always be called on the x86 architecture, > > no not matter what cpufreq driver is loaded. > > > > Yes, alternatively, all possible driver.get routines could be updated > > to call the same routine. That is acpi-cpufreq.c, intel_pstate.c, > > others? > > Just acpi-cpufreq.c and intel_pstate.c. > > Moreover, I wouldn't change the behavior on systems using acpi-cpufreq.c, > because why really?
Actually, having thought a bit more about this, I see why that may be useful. Also the #ifdef CONFIG_X86 in the header is better than an arch header, at least for now, so I agree with the approach in your patch. Thanks, Rafael
