On 22 February 2013 07:59, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Friday, February 22, 2013 07:44:23 AM Viresh Kumar wrote: >> If you don't like this one then we can add another entry >> into struct policy like: gov_sysfs_parent. > > I don't know. This is going to look kind of ugly this way or another I think. > > Maybe I'll figure out something ... Another simple way of doing this is, leave this patch and here is why i say so. struct policy is allocated dynamically with kzalloc and so every field is zero including have_multiple_policies. And only the platforms needing this feature would make it 1 and all remaining ones would stay unchanged. This variable would waste just "4" bytes for platforms that don't need this feature. About performance: This if/else is called only on policy creation or destruction. For platforms that doesn't have multiple policies and thus all cpus share the same policy struct, the destruction might never happen unless we rmmod/insmod cpufreq driver, because policy destruction would only happen when all the cpus are removed :) So it will execute only once at boot time when we initialize policy struct. Is this patch worth keeping then? -- viresh -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cpufreq" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
