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 <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?
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 cpufreq" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
