Re: [PATCH 1/6] cpufreq: Use existing stub functions instead of IS_ENABLED macro

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 >>> wrote: The functions stub already exist for the condition the IS_ENABLED

Re: [PATCH 1/6] cpufreq: Use existing stub functions instead of IS_ENABLED macro

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 > > wrote: > >> > >> The functions stub already exist for the condition the IS_ENABLED > >> is trying to avoid. > >> > >> Remove the IS

Re: [PATCH 1/6] cpufreq: Use existing stub functions instead of IS_ENABLED macro

On 22/06/2019 11:12, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 3:23 PM Daniel Lezcano > 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

Re: [PATCH 1/6] cpufreq: Use existing stub functions instead of IS_ENABLED macro

On 24-06-19, 10:53, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > > Hi Viresh, > > On 21/06/2019 15:22, Daniel Lezcano 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. > > > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano

Re: [PATCH 1/6] cpufreq: Use existing stub functions instead of IS_ENABLED macro

Hi Rafael, On 24/06/2019 11:00, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 10:53 AM Daniel Lezcano > wrote: >> >> >> Hi Viresh, >> >> On 21/06/2019 15:22, Daniel Lezcano wrote: >>> The functions stub already exist for the condition the IS_ENABLED >>> is trying to avoid. >>> >>> Remove t

Re: [PATCH 1/6] cpufreq: Use existing stub functions instead of IS_ENABLED macro

On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 10:53 AM Daniel Lezcano wrote: > > > Hi Viresh, > > On 21/06/2019 15:22, Daniel Lezcano 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. > > > > Signed-off-by: Da

Re: [PATCH 1/6] cpufreq: Use existing stub functions instead of IS_ENABLED macro

Hi Viresh, On 21/06/2019 15:22, Daniel Lezcano 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. > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano what about this one? > --- > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c |

Re: [PATCH 1/6] cpufreq: Use existing stub functions instead of IS_ENABLED macro

On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 3:23 PM Daniel Lezcano 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