Re: [PATCH 5/5] cpufreq: schedutil: do not update rate limit ts when freq is unchanged

[Steve Muckle]

On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 02:37:17AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> Also I think that it would be good to avoid walking the frequency
> table twice in case we end up wanting to update the frequency after
> all.  With the [4/5] we'd do it once in get_next_freq() and then once
> more in cpufreq_driver_fast_switch(), for example, and walking the
> frequency table may be more expensive that doing the switch in the
> first place.

If a driver API is added to return the platform frequency associated
with a target frequency, what do you think about requiring the
fast_switch API to take a target-supported frequency?