[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160531111451.GF9463@vireshk-i7>
Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 16:44:51 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@...aro.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Juri Lelli <Juri.Lelli@....com>,
Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com>,
Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] cpufreq: add resolve_freq driver callback
On 25-05-16, 19:52, Steve Muckle wrote:
> +unsigned int cpufreq_driver_resolve_freq(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
> + unsigned int target_freq)
> +{
> + struct cpufreq_frequency_table *freq_table;
> + int index, retval;
> +
> + clamp_val(target_freq, policy->min, policy->max);
Rafael will kill me for this, as I have fallen into the same trap and
copied your *incorrect* code :(
This is a useless statement unless you do:
target_freq = clamp_val(target_freq, policy->min, policy->max);
--
viresh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists