On 2025/6/23 23:35, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 23, 2025 at 3:34 PM Lifeng Zheng <zhenglifeng1@huawei.com> wrote:
>>
>> Move the check of cpufreq_driver->get into cpufreq_verify_current_freq() in
>> case of calling it without check.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Lifeng Zheng <zhenglifeng1@huawei.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 11 +++++------
>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
>> index c4891bf5dc84..9b2578b905a5 100644
>> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
>> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
>> @@ -1800,6 +1800,9 @@ static unsigned int cpufreq_verify_current_freq(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, b
>> {
>> unsigned int new_freq;
>>
>> + if (!cpufreq_driver->get)
>> + return 0;
>> +
>
> This will duplicate the check in cpufreq_policy_refresh(), won't it?
Yes, the check will duplicate but I think it's OK. If remove the check in
cpufreq_policy_refresh(), the logic will be changed.
>
>> new_freq = cpufreq_driver->get(policy->cpu);
>> if (!new_freq)
>> return 0;
>> @@ -1922,10 +1925,7 @@ unsigned int cpufreq_get(unsigned int cpu)
>>
>> guard(cpufreq_policy_read)(policy);
>>
>> - if (cpufreq_driver->get)
>> - return __cpufreq_get(policy);
>> -
>> - return 0;
>> + return __cpufreq_get(policy);
>> }
>> EXPORT_SYMBOL(cpufreq_get);
>>
>> @@ -2479,8 +2479,7 @@ int cpufreq_start_governor(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
>>
>> pr_debug("%s: for CPU %u\n", __func__, policy->cpu);
>>
>> - if (cpufreq_driver->get)
>> - cpufreq_verify_current_freq(policy, false);
>> + cpufreq_verify_current_freq(policy, false);
>>
>> if (policy->governor->start) {
>> ret = policy->governor->start(policy);
>> --
>> 2.33.0
>>