On 20-09-17, 15:04, Dong Aisheng wrote:

On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 04:10:07PM -0700, Viresh Kumar wrote:

quoted

On 24-08-17, 00:10, Dong Aisheng wrote:

quoted

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 <vireshk@kernel.org>
Cc: Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com>
Cc: Stephen Boyd <redacted>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <redacted>
Signed-off-by: Dong Aisheng <aisheng.dong@nxp.com>
---
 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.

Perhaps you can send it separately if you want as your series is
surely going to take some time to get merged.

-- 
viresh