On 7/8/21 11:09 AM, Vincent Donnefort wrote:

[snip]

  static inline int cpufreq_frequency_table_target(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
  						 unsigned int target_freq,
  						 unsigned int relation)
  {
+	unsigned int idx;
+
  	if (unlikely(policy->freq_table_sorted == CPUFREQ_TABLE_UNSORTED))
  		return cpufreq_table_index_unsorted(policy, target_freq,
  						    relation);
  
+	relation = cpufreq_frequency_relation_efficient(policy, relation);
+
  	switch (relation) {
  	case CPUFREQ_RELATION_L:
-		return cpufreq_table_find_index_l(policy, target_freq);

Isn't a place where the 'fallthrough;' is needed? Any warnings seen
maybe in other arch compiler?

+	case CPUFREQ_RELATION_E:
+		idx = cpufreq_table_find_index_l(policy, target_freq);
+		return relation == CPUFREQ_RELATION_L ? idx :
+			cpufreq_frequency_find_efficient(policy, idx);
  	case CPUFREQ_RELATION_H:
  		return cpufreq_table_find_index_h(policy, target_freq);
  	case CPUFREQ_RELATION_C: