cpufreq: Use has_target() instead of !setpolicy
For code consistency, use has_target() instead of !setpolicy everywhere, as it is already done at several places. Maybe we should also use "!has_target()" instead of "cpufreq_driver->setpolicy" where we need to check if the driver supports setpolicy, so to use only one expression for this kind of differentiation. Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
This commit is contained in:
parent
407d0fff22
commit
5ddc6d4e30
|
@ -634,7 +634,7 @@ static int cpufreq_parse_policy(char *str_governor,
|
|||
}
|
||||
|
||||
/**
|
||||
* cpufreq_parse_governor - parse a governor string only for !setpolicy
|
||||
* cpufreq_parse_governor - parse a governor string only for has_target()
|
||||
*/
|
||||
static int cpufreq_parse_governor(char *str_governor,
|
||||
struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
|
||||
|
@ -1303,7 +1303,7 @@ static int cpufreq_online(unsigned int cpu)
|
|||
policy->max = policy->user_policy.max;
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
if (cpufreq_driver->get && !cpufreq_driver->setpolicy) {
|
||||
if (cpufreq_driver->get && has_target()) {
|
||||
policy->cur = cpufreq_driver->get(policy->cpu);
|
||||
if (!policy->cur) {
|
||||
pr_err("%s: ->get() failed\n", __func__);
|
||||
|
@ -2402,7 +2402,7 @@ void cpufreq_update_policy(unsigned int cpu)
|
|||
* BIOS might change freq behind our back
|
||||
* -> ask driver for current freq and notify governors about a change
|
||||
*/
|
||||
if (cpufreq_driver->get && !cpufreq_driver->setpolicy &&
|
||||
if (cpufreq_driver->get && has_target() &&
|
||||
(cpufreq_suspended || WARN_ON(!cpufreq_update_current_freq(policy))))
|
||||
goto unlock;
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue