[PATCH V2 3/5] cpufreq: Use has_target() instead of !setpolicy

[Viresh Kumar]

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@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
 drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 6 +++---
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
index 41ac701e324f..5f5c7a516c74 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
@@ -632,7 +632,7 @@ 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)
@@ -1301,7 +1301,7 @@ 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__);
@@ -2401,7 +2401,7 @@ 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;
 
-- 
2.21.0.rc0.269.g1a574e7a288b