From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754936AbcGVRtR (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Jul 2016 13:49:17 -0400 Received: from mail-pa0-f48.google.com ([209.85.220.48]:35189 "EHLO mail-pa0-f48.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754902AbcGVRtO (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Jul 2016 13:49:14 -0400 From: Steve Muckle X-Google-Original-From: Steve Muckle Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2016 10:49:10 -0700 To: Viresh Kumar Cc: Steve Muckle , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, Vincent Guittot , Morten Rasmussen , Dietmar Eggemann , Juri Lelli , Patrick Bellasi Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] cpufreq: add cpufreq_driver_resolve_freq() Message-ID: <20160722174910.GF27987@graphite.smuckle.net> References: <1468441527-23534-1-git-send-email-smuckle@linaro.org> <1468441527-23534-2-git-send-email-smuckle@linaro.org> <20160721195926.GF3122@ubuntu> <2012245.HQXNKhffmu@vostro.rjw.lan> <20160721203041.GH3122@ubuntu> <20160721232131.GS27987@graphite.smuckle.net> <20160721233003.GM3122@ubuntu> <20160721233648.GV27987@graphite.smuckle.net> <20160722004405.GA27987@graphite.smuckle.net> <20160722151641.GQ3122@ubuntu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160722151641.GQ3122@ubuntu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 08:16:42AM -0700, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > Long term as I was mentioning in the other thread I think it'd be good > > if the current target() drivers were modified to supply resolve_freq(), > > and that cpufreq_register_driver() were again changed to require it for > > those drivers. > > There is no need for us to force this, its really optional for such > platforms. Worst case, schedutil wouldn't work at the best, so what? > Its a platform driver's choice, isn't it ? This would be in the context of then being able to remove the additional if statement from the hot path. To reply to the suggestion of using likely() here, I'm partial to solving it without that because I'm guessing likely() has to be an architecture-dependent thing? It seems cleaner to me if the existing few target() drivers were augmented to provide the resolve_freq() calback and its presence required. But it's certainly not a big deal and won't affect any platforms I'm involved with, at least for now. Maybe I could work on those target() drivers if things change.