On 11/07/17 07:01, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 10-07-17, 13:02, Dietmar Eggemann wrote: >> Yes, I will change this. The #define approach is not really necessary >> here since we're not in the scheduler hot-path and inlining is not >> really required here. > > It would be part of scheduler hot-path for the fast-switching case, isn't it ? > (I am not arguing against using weak functions, just wanted to correct above > statement).
Yes you're right here. But in the meantime we're convinced that cpufreq_driver_fast_switch() is not the right place to call arch_set_freq_scale() since for (future) arm/arm64 fast-switch driver, the return value of cpufreq_driver->fast_switch() does not give us the information that the frequency value did actually change. So we probably have to do this soemwhere in the cpufreq driver(s) to support fast-switching until we have aperf/mperf like counters.
