On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 4:13 AM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.ku...@linaro.org> wrote: > On 18-05-16, 23:01, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.ku...@linaro.org> >> wrote: >> > These macros can be used by governors which don't use the common >> > governor code present in cpufreq_governor.c and should be moved to the >> > relevant header. >> > >> > Now that they are getting moved to the right header file, reuse them in >> > schedutil governor as well (that required rename of show/store >> > routines). >> >> I'm not sure what the benefit is to be honest. >> >> It adds one level of indirection to the definition of rate_limit_us, >> but why is that better? > > I agree. > > I did it because I am required to use these macros for the > interactive-governor and have to move them to cpufreq.h anyway. > > Now that we have to move them out, I thought that we should perhaps > use them for schedutil as well. This would look more relevant to > schedutil once it has more tunables instead of just one.
OK, then let's defer this change until we have interactive in the tree (which still may or may not happen).
