On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 04:36:48PM -0700, Steve Muckle wrote: > On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 04:30:03PM -0700, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > On 21-07-16, 16:21, Steve Muckle wrote: > > > On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 01:30:41PM -0700, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > > > Okay, but in that case shouldn't we do something like this: > > > > > > > > unsigned int cpufreq_driver_resolve_freq(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, > > > > unsigned int target_freq) > > > > { > > > > target_freq = clamp_val(target_freq, policy->min, policy->max); > > > > policy->cached_target_freq = target_freq; > > > > > > > > if (cpufreq_driver->target_index) { > > > > policy->cached_resolved_idx = > > > > cpufreq_frequency_table_target(policy, > > > > target_freq, > > > > > > > > CPUFREQ_RELATION_L); > > > > return > > > > policy->freq_table[policy->cached_resolved_idx].frequency; > > > > } > > > > > > > > if (cpufreq_driver->resolve_freq) > > > > return cpufreq_driver->resolve_freq(policy, target_freq); > > > > } > > > > > > Thanks for the review. > > > > > > My thinking (noted in the commit text) was that the caller of > > > cpufreq_driver_resolve_freq() would verify that the driver supported the > > > proper calls before using this API. > > > > Okay, but the caller isn't doing that today. Right? > > There is no caller yet.
Sorry, of course this is not true. I'm still of the opinion that modifying the governor (I could fix up schedutil now) or adding a check in driver init would be better than any unnecessary logic in the fast path.