On Wed, Jul 04, 2018 at 12:41:21PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Wednesday, July 4, 2018 1:47:01 AM CEST Matthias Kaehlcke wrote: > > cpufreq stubs out some functions when CONFIG_CPU_FREQ=n , but > > cpufreq_update_policy() is not among them. The throttler driver > > (https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10453351/) uses cpufreq as one > > possible throttling mechanism, but it can still be useful without > > cpufreq. Stubbing out cpufreq_update_policy() allows the throttler > > driver to be built without ugly #ifdef'ery when cpufreq is disabled. > > > > Signed-off-by: Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Reviewed-by: Brian Norris <briannorris@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > Changes in v5: > > - none > > > > Changes in v4: > > - added 'Reviewed-by: Brian Norris <briannorris@xxxxxxxxxxxx>' tag > > > > Changes in v3: > > - patch added to series > > --- > > include/linux/cpufreq.h | 1 + > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > > > diff --git a/include/linux/cpufreq.h b/include/linux/cpufreq.h > > index 882a9b9e34bc..dba8c4951e2e 100644 > > --- a/include/linux/cpufreq.h > > +++ b/include/linux/cpufreq.h > > @@ -210,6 +210,7 @@ static inline unsigned int cpufreq_quick_get_max(unsigned int cpu) > > return 0; > > } > > static inline void disable_cpufreq(void) { } > > +static inline void cpufreq_update_policy(unsigned int cpu) { } > > #endif > > > > #ifdef CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_STAT > > > > I can take this patch if you want me to. Sounds good. This series is moving forward slower than I had hoped and there are a few patches that are useful independently of the throttler at the end of the series. It probably makes sense to start integrating them rather than carrying them around unchanged from version to version and repeatedly spam <world>. Thanks Matthias -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
