6 Jun
2016
6 Jun
'16
12:57 p.m.
On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 2:24 PM, Viresh Kumar viresh.kumar@linaro.org wrote:
On 6 June 2016 at 17:40, Rafael J. Wysocki rjw@rjwysocki.net wrote:
On Monday, June 06, 2016 09:22:31 AM Viresh Kumar wrote:
I agree with that, though that requires larger changes across multiple sites.
What changes and where?
s/larger/some :)
So we can change all the callers of cpufreq_frequency_table_target(),
But why?
It just works as a static inline wrapper around cpufreq_find_index_l() for the code in question after this patch, doesn't it?
So if the caller knows it will always ask for RELATION_L, why bother with using the wrapper?
Also I'm wondering about the cpufreq_for_each_valid_entry() used all over. Can't the things be arranged so all of the entries are valid?