Re: [PATCH V3 8/9] cpufreq: Keep policy->freq_table sorted in ascending order

From	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	Re: [PATCH V3 8/9] cpufreq: Keep policy->freq_table sorted in ascending order
Date	2016-06-06 15:00 +0200
Message-ID	<rH2iq-53K-3@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	<rFXup-3Iu-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <rG70J-1fx-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <rGTRL-7TG-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <rH1vX-4Me-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <rH1Z0-4WZ-23@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 2:24 PM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
> On 6 June 2016 at 17:40, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@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?

Thread

[PATCH V3 8/9] cpufreq: Keep policy->freq_table sorted in ascending order Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> - 2016-06-03 15:40 +0200
  Re: [PATCH V3 8/9] cpufreq: Keep policy->freq_table sorted in  ascending order Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@linaro.org> - 2016-06-04 01:50 +0200
    Re: [PATCH V3 8/9] cpufreq: Keep policy->freq_table sorted in  ascending order Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> - 2016-06-06 06:00 +0200
      Re: [PATCH V3 8/9] cpufreq: Keep policy->freq_table sorted in ascending order "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net> - 2016-06-06 14:10 +0200
        Re: [PATCH V3 8/9] cpufreq: Keep policy->freq_table sorted in  ascending order Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> - 2016-06-06 14:40 +0200
          Re: [PATCH V3 8/9] cpufreq: Keep policy->freq_table sorted in  ascending order "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org> - 2016-06-06 15:00 +0200
            Re: [PATCH V3 8/9] cpufreq: Keep policy->freq_table sorted in  ascending order Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> - 2016-06-06 18:30 +0200
              Re: [PATCH V3 8/9] cpufreq: Keep policy->freq_table sorted in  ascending order "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org> - 2016-06-07 00:00 +0200
                Re: [PATCH V3 8/9] cpufreq: Keep policy->freq_table sorted in  ascending order Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> - 2016-06-07 06:30 +0200
                Re: [PATCH V3 8/9] cpufreq: Keep policy->freq_table sorted in ascending order "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net> - 2016-06-08 02:40 +0200
                Re: [PATCH V3 8/9] cpufreq: Keep policy->freq_table sorted in  ascending order Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> - 2016-06-08 05:50 +0200

csiph-web