Re: [PATCH 16/17] cpufreq: remove check for cpufreq_disabled() from cpufreq_cpu_{get|put}()

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

On 2 January 2015 at 12:34, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
> In most of the cases cpufreq wouldn't be disabled and this adds unnecessary
> delay for its users. In the case if cpufreq is really disabled, then the per-cpu
> variable will also return NULL and things will continue working as is. Remove
> this unnecessary check.
>
> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
> ---
>  drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 6 ------
>  1 file changed, 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> index 14d637a28dd8..62c6a0b8b0d1 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> @@ -202,9 +202,6 @@ struct cpufreq_policy *cpufreq_cpu_get(unsigned int cpu)
>         struct cpufreq_policy *policy = NULL;
>         unsigned long flags;
>
> -       if (cpufreq_disabled())
> -               return NULL;
> -
>         if (!down_read_trylock(&cpufreq_rwsem))
>                 return NULL;
>
> @@ -229,9 +226,6 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(cpufreq_cpu_get);
>
>  void cpufreq_cpu_put(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
>  {
> -       if (cpufreq_disabled())
> -               return;
> -
>         kobject_put(&policy->kobj);
>         up_read(&cpufreq_rwsem);
>  }

@Rafael: Are you fine with this patch as is? I meant, you just left it for
rebase conflict or because you want it to be part of the WARN() you
suggested?

The WARN here might not be a good idea as this can be called by
users while cpufreq is disabled. But we don't need this check because
of the reasons I mentioned in commit log.