Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Fri, 8 May 2020 14:21:29 +0100
From:   Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>
To:     Pavan Kondeti <pkondeti@codeaurora.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
        tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, bp@alien8.de, x86@kernel.org,
        hpa@zytor.com, sudeep.holla@arm.com, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org,
        rafael@kernel.org, viresh.kumar@linaro.org, peterz@infradead.org,
        juri.lelli@redhat.com, vincent.guittot@linaro.org,
        dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, bsegall@google.com,
        mgorman@suse.de, mcgrof@kernel.org, keescook@chromium.org,
        yzaikin@google.com, fweisbec@gmail.com, tkjos@google.com,
        kernel-team@android.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/14] sched: cpufreq: Use IS_ENABLED() for schedutil
Message-ID: <20200508132129.GE10541@google.com>
References: <20200507181012.29791-1-qperret@google.com>
 <20200507181012.29791-14-qperret@google.com>
 <20200508053053.GG19464@codeaurora.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200508053053.GG19464@codeaurora.org>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Friday 08 May 2020 at 11:00:53 (+0530), Pavan Kondeti wrote:
> > -#if defined(CONFIG_ENERGY_MODEL) && defined(CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_GOV_SCHEDUTIL)
> > +#if defined(CONFIG_ENERGY_MODEL) && IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_GOV_SCHEDUTIL)
> >  	/* Build perf. domains: */
> >  	for (i = 0; i < ndoms_new; i++) {
> >  		for (j = 0; j < n && !sched_energy_update; j++) {
> 
> Now that scheduler does not have any references to schedutil_gov and cpufreq
> has want_eas flag, do we need this CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_GOV_SCHEDUTIL checks here?

Right, they're not absolutely required, but given that sugov is the only
one to have 'want_eas' set I guess there is no need to compile that in
without it, no?

Cheers,
Quentin