Re: [PATCH V3 8/9] cpufreq: Keep policy->freq_table sorted in ascending order

On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 2:24 PM, Viresh Kumar [off-list ref] wrote:

On 6 June 2016 at 17:40, Rafael J. Wysocki [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Monday, June 06, 2016 09:22:31 AM Viresh Kumar wrote:

quoted

quoted

I agree with that, though that requires larger changes across multiple
sites.

What changes and where?

s/larger/some :)

So we can change all the callers of cpufreq_frequency_table_target(),

But why?

It just works as a static inline wrapper around cpufreq_find_index_l()
for the code in question after this patch, doesn't it?

So if the caller knows it will always ask for RELATION_L, why bother
with using the wrapper?

Also I'm wondering about the cpufreq_for_each_valid_entry() used all
over.  Can't the things be arranged so all of the entries are valid?