On 24/06/2019 11:30, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, June 24, 2019 11:22:19 AM CEST Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> On 22/06/2019 11:12, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 3:23 PM Daniel Lezcano
>>> <daniel.lezc...@linaro.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The functions stub already exist for the condition the IS_ENABLED
>>>> is trying to avoid.
>>>>
>>>> Remove the IS_ENABLED macros as they are pointless.
>>>
>>> AFAICS, the IS_ENABLED checks are an optimization to avoid generating
>>> pointless code (including a branch) in case CONFIG_CPU_THERMAL is not
>>> set.
>>>
>>> Why do you think that it is not useful?
>>
>> I agree but I'm not a big fan of IS_ENABLED macros in the code when it
>> is possible to avoid them.
>>
>> What about adding a stub for that like:
>
> Well,
>
>> #ifdef CPU_THERMAL
>> static inline int cpufreq_is_cooling_dev(struct cpufreq_driver *drv)
>> {
>> return drv->flags & CPUFREQ_IS_COOLING_DEV;
>> }
>> #else
>> static inline int cpufreq_is_cooling_dev(struct cpufreq_driver *drv)
>> {
>> return 0;
>> }
>> #endif
>
> This may as well be defined as
>
> static inline int cpufreq_is_cooling_dev(struct cpufreq_driver *drv)
> {
> return IS_ENABLED(CPU_THERMAL) && drv->flags & CPUFREQ_IS_COOLING_DEV;
> }
>
> which is fewer lines of code.
Ah yes, even better.
> And I would call it something like cpufreq_thermal_control_enabled().
Ok, thanks!
--
<http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog
