On 6 June 2016 at 18:27, Rafael J. Wysocki <raf...@kernel.org> wrote: > 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?
Sorry, I got a bit confused. Are you saying that we should do that change right in the patch? Because I am also saying that yes, there is no point calling the wrapper. I can update this patch to make direct calls to the relation specific routines if you want. > 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? Yeah, there would be multiple opportunities available to optimize code after this series is in. The policy->table after this series is all sorted properly and all the entries are valid as well. But surely that should be done in a separate series _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
