[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200825110747.GA12506@arm.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2020 12:07:56 +0100
From: Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@....com>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc: rjw@...ysocki.net, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
catalin.marinas@....com, sudeep.holla@....com, will@...nel.org,
valentin.schneider@....com, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/5] cpufreq: report whether cpufreq supports
Frequency Invariance (FI)
Hi Viresh,
On Tuesday 25 Aug 2020 at 11:57:09 (+0530), Viresh Kumar wrote:
[..]
> > +static inline
> > +void enable_cpufreq_freq_invariance(struct cpufreq_driver *driver)
> > +{
> > + if (!driver->setpolicy) {
> > + static_branch_enable_cpuslocked(&cpufreq_freq_invariance);
> > + pr_debug("supports frequency invariance");
> > + }
> > +}
> > +
>
> I would rather open-code this int the cpufreq_register_driver() routine as
> that's what is done in cpufreq_unregister_driver() as well.
>
> > +bool cpufreq_supports_freq_invariance(void)
> > +{
> > + return static_branch_likely(&cpufreq_freq_invariance);
> > +}
> > +
>
> And would keep the definition of the static key with this routine at a single
> place.
Makes sense and will do!
Thank you for the quick review,
Ionela.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists