From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Viresh Kumar Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 8/9] cpufreq: Keep policy->freq_table sorted in ascending order Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 09:22:31 +0530 Message-ID: <20160606035231.GZ16176@vireshk-i7> References: <20160603234854.GF14579@graphite.smuckle.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mail-pf0-f170.google.com ([209.85.192.170]:34726 "EHLO mail-pf0-f170.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752611AbcFFDwf (ORCPT ); Sun, 5 Jun 2016 23:52:35 -0400 Received: by mail-pf0-f170.google.com with SMTP id 62so62441901pfd.1 for ; Sun, 05 Jun 2016 20:52:35 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160603234854.GF14579@graphite.smuckle.net> Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org To: Steve Muckle Cc: Rafael Wysocki , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Paul Mackerras , Michael Ellerman , linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov , Krzysztof Kozlowski , Kukjin Kim , Shawn Guo , Steven Miao On 03-06-16, 16:48, Steve Muckle wrote: > On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 07:05:14PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > ... > > @@ -468,20 +469,15 @@ unsigned int acpi_cpufreq_fast_switch(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, > > struct acpi_cpufreq_data *data = policy->driver_data; > > struct acpi_processor_performance *perf; > > struct cpufreq_frequency_table *entry; > > - unsigned int next_perf_state, next_freq, freq; > > + unsigned int next_perf_state, next_freq, index; > > > > /* > > * Find the closest frequency above target_freq. > > - * > > - * The table is sorted in the reverse order with respect to the > > - * frequency and all of the entries are valid (see the initialization). > > */ > > - entry = policy->freq_table; > > - do { > > - entry++; > > - freq = entry->frequency; > > - } while (freq >= target_freq && freq != CPUFREQ_TABLE_END); > > - entry--; > > + index = cpufreq_frequency_table_target(policy, target_freq, > > + CPUFREQ_RELATION_L); > > Can we call cpufreq_find_index_l directly here? Seems like we could > phase out cpufreq_frequency_table_target() for the most part and call > the helpers directly. It would avoid some code bloat, an unnecessary > switch statement and an error check for an invalid frequency table which > seems unnecessary for every frequency table lookup. I agree with that, though that requires larger changes across multiple sites. I hope it will be fine if I do it in a separate patch on top of all this. Right ? -- viresh