Re: [PATCH V4 3/3] cpufreq: Specify default governor on command line

[Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>]

On Monday 29 Jun 2020 at 15:24:23 (+0530), Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 29-06-20, 10:50, Quentin Perret wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> That would be fine I believe. I will do all that in a separate patch
> then and let this series go through with no more changes :)

OK, that works for me.

Thanks!
Quentin