Re: [PATCH 2/2] cpufreq: simplify cpufreq_set_policy() interface

[Zihuan Zhang]

在 2025/8/20 13:47, Viresh Kumar 写道:
> On 20-08-25, 13:42, Zihuan Zhang wrote:
> > You’re right, we didn’t really consider that case before.
> >
> > The interface of cpufreq_set_policy() does look a bit odd:
> >
> > - drivers using governors don’t really need the new_pol parameter
> >
> > - while drivers using the setpolicy method don’t need the new_gov one.
> Right, one argument is _always_ unused. If we could have handled that via a
> single argument, it would have been nice.
Sounds great.
> > I guess this might be due to some historical reasons.
> >
> > The question is whether it’s worth modifying this function, or if we should
> > just keep it as it is.
> Unless there is a better way :)

If we change cpufreq_set_policy() to only take one parameter, then we 
would need to add extra fields into struct cpufreq_policy to hold 
temporary values,

in order to avoid the issue where verify may return early and leave the 
policy in a partially updated state.


So maybe it is better not to modify it.
>