On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 04:10:07PM -0700, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 24-08-17, 00:10, Dong Aisheng wrote: > > If no valid transition_latency specified, let's make it default to > > CPUFREQ_ETERNAL which is consistent with its definition. > > > > This can save some of the same checkings like this: > > transition_latency = dev_pm_opp_get_max_transition_latency(cpu_dev); > > - if (!transition_latency) > > - transition_latency = CPUFREQ_ETERNAL; > > ret = cpufreq_generic_init(policy, freq_table, transition_latency); > > > > Cc: Viresh Kumar <[email protected]> > > Cc: Nishanth Menon <[email protected]> > > Cc: Stephen Boyd <[email protected]> > > Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <[email protected]> > > Signed-off-by: Dong Aisheng <[email protected]> > > --- > > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 2 ++ > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > > index 9bf97a3..da07de6 100644 > > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > > @@ -180,6 +180,8 @@ int cpufreq_generic_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, > > return ret; > > } > > > > + if (!transition_latency) > > + transition_latency = CPUFREQ_ETERNAL; > > policy->cpuinfo.transition_latency = transition_latency; > > > > /* > > Can you update all the existing drivers as well (in the same patch) > who can benefit from it?
Yes, of course. Will do it in the updated version later. Thanks Regards Dong Aisheng > > -- > viresh
