linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] cpufreq: simplify cpufreq_set

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20250820054759.iewwi6uvsvowc422@vireshk-i7>
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2025 11:17:59 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: Zihuan Zhang <zhangzihuan@...inos.cn>
Cc: "rafael J . wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
	zhenglifeng <zhenglifeng1@...wei.com>, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] cpufreq: simplify cpufreq_set_policy() interface

On 20-08-25, 13:42, Zihuan Zhang wrote:
> You’re right, we didn’t really consider that case before.
> 
> The interface of cpufreq_set_policy() does look a bit odd:
> 
> - drivers using governors don’t really need the new_pol parameter
> 
> - while drivers using the setpolicy method don’t need the new_gov one.

Right, one argument is _always_ unused. If we could have handled that via a
single argument, it would have been nice.

> I guess this might be due to some historical reasons.
> 
> The question is whether it’s worth modifying this function, or if we should
> just keep it as it is.

Unless there is a better way :)

-- 
viresh