[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200518101109.4uggngudy4gfmlvo@vireshk-i7>
Date: Mon, 18 May 2020 15:41:09 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
Cc: Serge Semin <Sergey.Semin@...kalelectronics.ru>,
Serge Semin <fancer.lancer@...il.com>,
Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>,
Alexey Malahov <Alexey.Malahov@...kalelectronics.ru>,
Paul Burton <paulburton@...nel.org>,
Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, linux-mips@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Yue Hu <huyue2@...ong.com>,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 20/20] cpufreq: Return zero on success in boost sw
setting
On 18-05-20, 11:53, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> That said if you really only want it to return 0 on success, you may as well
> add a ret = 0; statement (with a comment explaining why it is needed) after
> the last break in the loop.
That can be done as well, but will be a bit less efficient as the loop
will execute once for each policy, and so the statement will run
multiple times. Though it isn't going to add any significant latency
in the code.
--
viresh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists