On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 06:40:36PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

quoted

Also what about leaving it as is? I didn't fully catch the concern with
abuse in the series I posted, and it pushes this complexity of dealing
with the freq table efficiently down into the driver, which is best
suited for that IMO.

The concern is that all drivers using frequency tables would probably
implement the callbacks in question in a very similar way, leading to
quite a bit of code duplication.  That's rarely a good thing.

Could this be assuaged with helper macros exported by cpufreq?