Re: [PATCH 1/6] cpufreq: Use existing stub functions instead of IS_ENABLED macro

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 3:23 PM Daniel Lezcano
<daniel.lezcano@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> The functions stub already exist for the condition the IS_ENABLED
> is trying to avoid.
>
> Remove the IS_ENABLED macros as they are pointless.

AFAICS, the IS_ENABLED checks are an optimization to avoid generating
pointless code (including a branch) in case CONFIG_CPU_THERMAL is not
set.

Why do you think that it is not useful?

> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 6 ++----
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> index 85ff958e01f1..7c72f7d3509c 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> @@ -1378,8 +1378,7 @@ static int cpufreq_online(unsigned int cpu)
>         if (cpufreq_driver->ready)
>                 cpufreq_driver->ready(policy);
>
> -       if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_CPU_THERMAL) &&
> -           cpufreq_driver->flags & CPUFREQ_IS_COOLING_DEV)
> +       if (cpufreq_driver->flags & CPUFREQ_IS_COOLING_DEV)
>                 policy->cdev = of_cpufreq_cooling_register(policy);
>
>         pr_debug("initialization complete\n");
> @@ -1469,8 +1468,7 @@ static int cpufreq_offline(unsigned int cpu)
>                 goto unlock;
>         }
>
> -       if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_CPU_THERMAL) &&
> -           cpufreq_driver->flags & CPUFREQ_IS_COOLING_DEV) {
> +       if (cpufreq_driver->flags & CPUFREQ_IS_COOLING_DEV) {
>                 cpufreq_cooling_unregister(policy->cdev);
>                 policy->cdev = NULL;
>         }
> --
> 2.17.1
>