On Wednesday, May 07, 2014 10:53:16 AM Viresh Kumar wrote: > 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 :)
2. -- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center. -- 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/