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 <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.
>
>
Do you want me to resend the entire patch set or only patch 1/8?
Thanks,
Stratos
--
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
