[lkml]   [2015]   [Sep]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] cpufreq: pass policy to ->get() driver callback
On 10-09-15, 03:41, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> I see one. That unfortunately is the acpi-cpufreq driver, but it still is one.


> Well, cpufreq_generic_get() does _get_raw(), so I suppose acpi-cpufreq may
> do that too?

Yeah, it can.

> > need to get the policy back and so do
> > cpufreq_cpu_get(cpu) on the cpu passed as argument to ->get().
> >
> > It would be better if we pass them 'policy' directly and drivers can use
> > policy->cpu if that's all they need.
> Passing a pointer and dereferencing it is generally less efficient than passing
> a number. Before the patch the core has to do the dereference before calling
> ->get, so it likely doesn't matter here, but the code churn from this change
> is quite substantial and the benefit from it is in the noise IMO.

Hmm.. Actually almost every other callback (bios_limit() is another
one), passes the policy to the driver, and I thought always passing
the policy will make it more symmetrical. And the expectation that the
cpufreq drivers wouldn't need to use policy from the ->get() callback
would be wrong. Even if there are only few users today. One is the
acpi-cpufreq driver and others are the ones, that are using
cpufreq_generic_get() :)

> Overall, we need to talk about the design aspect of cpufreq, because there
> are much more significant issues in it than things like this one.

I agree.


 \ /
  Last update: 2015-09-10 03:41    [W:0.250 / U:0.436 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site