On Thursday, June 20, 2019 5:05:48 AM CEST Viresh Kumar wrote:
> For code consistency, use has_target() instead of !setpolicy everywhere,
> as it is already done at several places. Maybe we should also use
> "!has_target()" instead of "cpufreq_driver->setpolicy" where we need to
> check if the driver supports setpolicy, so to use only one expression
> for this kind of differentiation.
>
> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.ku...@linaro.org>
> ---
> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 6 +++---
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> index 41ac701e324f..5f5c7a516c74 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> @@ -632,7 +632,7 @@ static int cpufreq_parse_policy(char *str_governor,
> }
>
> /**
> - * cpufreq_parse_governor - parse a governor string only for !setpolicy
> + * cpufreq_parse_governor - parse a governor string only for has_target()
> */
> static int cpufreq_parse_governor(char *str_governor,
> struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
> @@ -1301,7 +1301,7 @@ static int cpufreq_online(unsigned int cpu)
> policy->max = policy->user_policy.max;
> }
>
> - if (cpufreq_driver->get && !cpufreq_driver->setpolicy) {
> + if (cpufreq_driver->get && has_target()) {
> policy->cur = cpufreq_driver->get(policy->cpu);
> if (!policy->cur) {
> pr_err("%s: ->get() failed\n", __func__);
> @@ -2401,7 +2401,7 @@ void cpufreq_update_policy(unsigned int cpu)
> * BIOS might change freq behind our back
> * -> ask driver for current freq and notify governors about a change
> */
> - if (cpufreq_driver->get && !cpufreq_driver->setpolicy &&
> + if (cpufreq_driver->get && has_target() &&
> (cpufreq_suspended ||
> WARN_ON(!cpufreq_update_current_freq(policy))))
> goto unlock;
>
>
Applied, thanks!
