[PATCH V3 8/9] cpufreq: Keep policy->freq_table sorted in ascending order

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 2:24 PM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar at linaro.org> wrote:
> On 6 June 2016 at 17:40, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw at rjwysocki.net> wrote:
>> On Monday, June 06, 2016 09:22:31 AM Viresh Kumar wrote:
>
>>> I agree with that, though that requires larger changes across multiple
>>> sites.
>>
>> What changes and where?
>
> s/larger/some :)
>
> So we can change all the callers of cpufreq_frequency_table_target(),

But why?

It just works as a static inline wrapper around cpufreq_find_index_l()
for the code in question after this patch, doesn't it?

So if the caller knows it will always ask for RELATION_L, why bother
with using the wrapper?

Also I'm wondering about the cpufreq_for_each_valid_entry() used all
over.  Can't the things be arranged so all of the entries are valid?