On Wednesday, May 07, 2014 10:53:16 AM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 6 May 2014 23:25, Stratos Karafotis <stratosk@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 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 cpufreq" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
