On 12 March 2014 07:53, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Is having ->target set mutually exclusive with having ->setpolicy set?
>
> It is quite clear that having ->setpolicy implies having ->target unset,
> because both drivers with ->setpolicy (intel_pstate and longrun) don't
> have ->target set.
>
> Now, are there any *other* cpufreq drivers without ->target?
>
> In either case, in my opinion we should just make cpufreq_register_driver()
> fail for drivers having both ->set_policy and ->target set at the same time.
> Like in the patch below.
>
> Rafael
>
>
> ---
> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 4 +++-
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> Index: linux-pm/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> +++ linux-pm/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> @@ -2306,7 +2306,9 @@ int cpufreq_register_driver(struct cpufr
>
> if (!driver_data || !driver_data->verify || !driver_data->init ||
> !(driver_data->setpolicy || driver_data->target_index ||
> - driver_data->target))
> + driver_data->target) ||
> + (driver_data->setpolicy && (driver_data->target_index ||
> + driver_data->target)))
> return -EINVAL;
>
> pr_debug("trying to register driver %s\n", driver_data->name);
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx>
--
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
