Re: [PATCH v6 6/7] cpufreq: Skip inefficient frequencies

From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
To: Vincent Donnefort <vincent.donnefort@arm.com>
Cc: peterz@infradead.org, rjw@rjwysocki.net,
	vincent.guittot@linaro.org, qperret@google.com,
	linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, ionela.voinescu@arm.com,
	lukasz.luba@arm.com, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, mka@chromium.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 6/7] cpufreq: Skip inefficient frequencies
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2021 11:00:23 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210901053023.yg4pbmqsgbmvo2qa@vireshk-i7> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1630405453-275784-7-git-send-email-vincent.donnefort@arm.com>

On 31-08-21, 11:24, Vincent Donnefort wrote:
> +static inline bool

I would drop the inline part here.

> +cpufreq_can_skip_inefficiencies(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
> +{
> +	struct cpufreq_frequency_table *pos;
> +	bool valid = false;
> +	int idx;
> +
> +	if (!(policy->governor->flags & CPUFREQ_GOV_DYNAMIC_SWITCHING))
> +		return false;
> +
> +	if (policy->freq_table_sorted == CPUFREQ_TABLE_UNSORTED)
> +		return false;
> +
> +	/* Is there at least one inefficiency ? */
> +	cpufreq_for_each_valid_entry(pos, policy->freq_table) {
> +		if (pos->flags & CPUFREQ_INEFFICIENT_FREQ) {
> +			valid = true;
> +			break;
> +		}
> +	}
> +
> +	if (!valid)
> +		return false;
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * Has cpufreq_table_update_efficiencies been called? i.e. is the
> +	 * highest frequency efficient.
> +	 */
> +	cpufreq_for_each_valid_entry_idx(pos, policy->freq_table, idx) {
> +		valid = !!(idx == pos->efficient);

I don't think !! is required here. == already returns a bool.

> +		if (policy->freq_table_sorted ==
> +					CPUFREQ_TABLE_SORTED_DESCENDING)
> +			break;
> +	}

-- 
viresh