1 Jun
2016
1 Jun
'16
7:37 p.m.
On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 06:40:36PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Also what about leaving it as is? I didn't fully catch the concern with abuse in the series I posted, and it pushes this complexity of dealing with the freq table efficiently down into the driver, which is best suited for that IMO.
The concern is that all drivers using frequency tables would probably implement the callbacks in question in a very similar way, leading to quite a bit of code duplication. That's rarely a good thing.
Could this be assuaged with helper macros exported by cpufreq?