On 06-12-19, 16:24, Saravana Kannan wrote: > Viresh/Stephen, > > I don't think all the additional code/diff in this v6 series is worth it > to avoid using the rate field to store peak bandwidth. However, since folks > weren't too happy about it, here it is. I prefer the v5 series, but not > too strongly tied to it. Let me know what you think Viresh/Stephen. > > Btw, I wasn't sure of opp-hz = 0 I am not sure either ;) > or opp-level = 0 were allowed. Also, I think this is allowed. > it's not clear why the duplicate check isn't done for opp-level when > _opp_add() is called. Based on that, we could add opp-level comparison This should be done. Please do that in the first patch as I suggested in the code as well. > to opp_compare_key(). That's why you'll see a few spurious > opp_key.level = 0 lines. Let me know how you want to go with that. > > I could also add a opp.key_type enum field to store what key type the > opp entry is. But looks like I can get away without adding an > unnecessary variable. So, I've skipped that for now. Not in the OPP struct, but such an enum can be used for helper routines as I commented. -- viresh
