On 30-05-16, 09:20, Steve Muckle wrote: > A couple concerns... One is that if we do the lookup in > cpufreq_driver_resolve_freq() for drivers which implement target_index() > then it means using cpufreq_frequency_table_target() there. This is a > heavier weight function that can't take advantage of driver-specific > knowledge that the freq table is sorted a particular way.
I completely agree. > So for > acpi-cpufreq we'd now be having to walk the whole table for every > fast_switch. I have just tried to address that with following set: [PATCH 0/2] cpufreq: Use sorted frequency tables Lets see what Rafael has to say about that. > Another is that it'll be a a bit odd that the logic used to lookup the > driver frequency will be different in the cached and uncached > fast_switch cases. In the cached case it will have been determined by > code in cpufreq_driver_resolve_freq() whereas in the uncached case it > will be logic in the driver, in its fast_switch routine. We can make both of them refer the above code then. Lets see. -- viresh
