On Monday 29 Jun 2020 at 10:48:25 (+0100), Quentin Perret wrote:
> On Monday 29 Jun 2020 at 15:16:27 (+0530), Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > On 29-06-20, 10:44, Quentin Perret wrote:
> > > On Monday 29 Jun 2020 at 13:55:00 (+0530), Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > > > static int __init cpufreq_core_init(void)
> > > > {
> > > > + struct cpufreq_governor *gov = cpufreq_default_governor();
> > > > +
> > > > if (cpufreq_disabled())
> > > > return -ENODEV;
> > > >
> > > > cpufreq_global_kobject = kobject_create_and_add("cpufreq", &cpu_subsys.dev_root->kobj);
> > > > BUG_ON(!cpufreq_global_kobject);
> > > >
> > > > + if (!strlen(default_governor))
> > >
> > > Should we test '!strlen(default_governor) && gov' here actually?
> > > We check the return value of cpufreq_default_governor() in
> > > cpufreq_init_policy(), so I'm guessing we should do the same here to be
> > > on the safe side.
> >
> > With the current setup (the Kconfig option being a choice which
> > selects one governor at least), it is not possible for gov to be NULL
> > here. And so I didn't worry about it :)
>
> Right, so should we remove the check in cpufreq_init_policy() then?
> I don't mind either way as long as we are consitent :)
And actually maybe we should remove the weakly defined
cpufreq_default_governor() implementation too? That'd make sure we get a
link-time error if for some reason things change in the Kconfig options.
Thanks,
Quentin
