On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 01:19:17PM -0700, Michael Turquette wrote: > That's what I had in mind. I guess that some day there will be a need to > select implementations at run-time for both cpufreq (e.g. different > cpufreq drivers might implement arch_scale_freq_capacity) and for the > !CONFIG_CPU_FREQ case (e.g. different platforms might implement > arch_scale_freq_capcity within the same arch).
No, no runtime selection. That gets us function pointers and other indirect mess. We should be trying very hard to get rid of that cpufreq_util_update() pointer, not add more of that gunk. Use self modifying code if you have to do something.
