On 18-10-19, 11:26, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 11:24 AM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On 18-10-19, 10:30, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 10:27 AM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > On 18-10-19, 10:24, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 7:44 AM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On 17-10-19, 18:34, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > > > [BTW, Viresh, it looks like cpufreq_set_policy() should still ensure > > > > > > > that the new min is less than the new max, because the QoS doesn't do > > > > > > > that.] > > > > > > > > > > > > The ->verify() callback does that for us I believe. > > > > > > > > > > It does in practice AFAICS, but in theory it may assume the right > > > > > ordering between the min and the max and just test the boundaries, may > > > > > it not? > > > > > > > > I think cpufreq_verify_within_limits() gets called for sure from > > > > within ->verify() for all platforms > > > > > > That's why I mean by "in practice". :-) > > > > Hmm, I am not sure if we should really add another min <= max check in > > cpufreq_set_policy() as in practice it will never hit :) > > Fair enough, but adding a comment regarding that in there would be prudent IMO. will do. -- viresh
