On Wednesday, May 07, 2014 04:34:12 PM Stratos Karafotis wrote: > Hi Rafael, > > On 07/05/2014 04:13 μμ, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > 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. > > > > > > Do you want me to resend the entire patch set or only patch 1/8?
It's already on a branch that cannot be rebased. Please send me a fix on top of it. -- 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/