@@ -2874,7 +2874,7 @@ int cpufreq_enable_boost_support(void)
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(cpufreq_enable_boost_support);
-int cpufreq_boost_enabled(void)
+bool cpufreq_boost_enabled(void)
{
return cpufreq_driver->boost_enabled;
}
@@ -785,7 +785,7 @@ ssize_t cpufreq_show_cpus(const struct cpumask *mask, char *buf);
#ifdef CONFIG_CPU_FREQ
int cpufreq_boost_trigger_state(int state);
-int cpufreq_boost_enabled(void);
+bool cpufreq_boost_enabled(void);
int cpufreq_enable_boost_support(void);
bool policy_has_boost_freq(struct cpufreq_policy *policy);
@@ -1164,7 +1164,7 @@ static inline int cpufreq_boost_trigger_state(int state)
{
return 0;
}
-static inline int cpufreq_boost_enabled(void)
+static inline bool cpufreq_boost_enabled(void)
{
return 0;
}
Since this function is supposed to return boost_enabled which is anyway a bool type make sure that it's return value is also marked as bool. This helps maintain better consistency in data types being used. Signed-off-by: Dhruva Gole <d-gole@ti.com> --- No functional changes, just noticed this as I was reviewing the patch, "cpufreq: Allow drivers to advertise boost enabled" drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 2 +- include/linux/cpufreq.h | 4 ++-- 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) base-commit: 0fc4bfab2cd45f9acb86c4f04b5191e114e901ed