Re: [PATCH 0/2] cpufreq: Use sorted frequency tables

[Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>]

On 31-05-16, 18:08, Steve Muckle wrote:
> Checking the table type

I hope you are talking about my patch here and in that case its not
table-type, but relation-type.

> and performing the associated lookup seems
> workable to me though it adds a bit of complexity.
> 
> Also what about leaving it as is?

So, your series kind of just triggered this thing, but freq matching
should always be really fast. And I feel that we should attempt to
making it fast.

> I didn't fully catch the concern with
> abuse in the series I posted, and it pushes this complexity of dealing
> with the freq table efficiently down into the driver, which is best
> suited for that IMO.

Not really. Its a single driver today, it will be 20 drivers tomorrow.
We really want to do such common stuff in core whenever it is
possible.

> Another thought is that it'd be nice to eventually reduce
> cpufreq_driver_{fast_switch,resolve_freq} into simple inline functions
> so that we could jump to the driver directly from schedutil, eliminating
> a function call.

That's kind of orthogonal to this :)

-- 
viresh