On 6 May 2014 23:25, Stratos Karafotis <strat...@semaphore.gr> wrote: > My bad. I'm sorry for this. :( > > Rafael, > A solution could be to make cpufreq_next_valid an inline function in > cpufreq.h, > but as Viresh mentioned this would be very inefficient because of multiple > copies.
That statement was true when we didn't had this problem.. > So, maybe it's better to revert the 2 patches that don't depend on > CONFIG_CPU_FREQ: > > 4229e1c61a4a ("sh: clk: Use cpufreq_for_each_valid_entry macro for > iteration") and > 04ae58645afa ("irda: sh_sir: Use cpufreq_for_each_valid_entry macro for > iteration"). This doesn't look right. It can happen to some other drivers as well in future. So, there are two solutions I can think of: 1. move cpufreq_next_valid and rename it to __cpufreq_next_valid(). Also make it inline. Then create two versions of cpufreq_next_valid(), one inlined (only when CONFIG_CPU_FREQ=n) and other one in cpufreq.c (non- inlined).. But probably that would be called ugly by some people :) 2. Make cpufreq_next_valid() inline and forget about extra space it takes :) @Rafel: Let me know which one you like :) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/