From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1752419AbcGUXVh (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 21 Jul 2016 19:21:37 -0400
Received: from mail-pf0-f175.google.com ([209.85.192.175]:33582 "EHLO
	mail-pf0-f175.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751553AbcGUXVf (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 21 Jul 2016 19:21:35 -0400
From: Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@linaro.org>
X-Google-Original-From: Steve Muckle <smuckle@linaro.org>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 16:21:31 -0700
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
        Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@linaro.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        Juri Lelli <Juri.Lelli@arm.com>,
        Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] cpufreq: add cpufreq_driver_resolve_freq()
Message-ID: <20160721232131.GS27987@graphite.smuckle.net>
References: <1468441527-23534-1-git-send-email-smuckle@linaro.org>
 <1468441527-23534-2-git-send-email-smuckle@linaro.org>
 <20160721195926.GF3122@ubuntu>
 <2012245.HQXNKhffmu@vostro.rjw.lan>
 <20160721203041.GH3122@ubuntu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20160721203041.GH3122@ubuntu>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 01:30:41PM -0700, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> Okay, but in that case shouldn't we do something like this:
> 
> unsigned int cpufreq_driver_resolve_freq(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
>                                         unsigned int target_freq)
> {
>        target_freq = clamp_val(target_freq, policy->min, policy->max);
>        policy->cached_target_freq = target_freq;
> 
>        if (cpufreq_driver->target_index) {
>        		policy->cached_resolved_idx =
>        		        cpufreq_frequency_table_target(policy, target_freq,
>        		                                       CPUFREQ_RELATION_L);
>        		return policy->freq_table[policy->cached_resolved_idx].frequency;
>        }
> 
>        if (cpufreq_driver->resolve_freq)
>                return cpufreq_driver->resolve_freq(policy, target_freq);
> }

Thanks for the review.

My thinking (noted in the commit text) was that the caller of
cpufreq_driver_resolve_freq() would verify that the driver supported the
proper calls before using this API. This way it can be checked once,
presumably in a governor's init routine. Checking the pointer over and
over again in a fast path is wasteful.