| Message ID | 20200701042007.13333-1-xhao@linux.alibaba.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Delegated to: | viresh kumar |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [v3] cpufreq: CPPC: simply the code access 'highest_perf' value in cppc_perf_caps struct | expand |
On 01-07-20, 12:20, Xin Hao wrote: > The 'caps' variable has been defined, so there is no need to get > 'highest_perf' value through 'cpu->caps.highest_perf', you can use > 'caps->highest_perf' instead. > > Signed-off-by: Xin Hao <xhao@linux.alibaba.com> > --- > drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c > index 257d726a4456..051d0e56c67a 100644 > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c > @@ -161,7 +161,7 @@ static unsigned int cppc_cpufreq_perf_to_khz(struct cppc_cpudata *cpu, > if (!max_khz) > max_khz = cppc_get_dmi_max_khz(); > mul = max_khz; > - div = cpu->perf_caps.highest_perf; > + div = caps->highest_perf; > } > return (u64)perf * mul / div; > } > @@ -184,7 +184,7 @@ static unsigned int cppc_cpufreq_khz_to_perf(struct cppc_cpudata *cpu, > } else { > if (!max_khz) > max_khz = cppc_get_dmi_max_khz(); > - mul = cpu->perf_caps.highest_perf; > + mul = caps->highest_perf; > div = max_khz; > } Applied. Thanks.
On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 6:52 AM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote: > > On 01-07-20, 12:20, Xin Hao wrote: > > The 'caps' variable has been defined, so there is no need to get > > 'highest_perf' value through 'cpu->caps.highest_perf', you can use > > 'caps->highest_perf' instead. > > > > Signed-off-by: Xin Hao <xhao@linux.alibaba.com> > > --- > > drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c | 4 ++-- > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c > > index 257d726a4456..051d0e56c67a 100644 > > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c > > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c > > @@ -161,7 +161,7 @@ static unsigned int cppc_cpufreq_perf_to_khz(struct cppc_cpudata *cpu, > > if (!max_khz) > > max_khz = cppc_get_dmi_max_khz(); > > mul = max_khz; > > - div = cpu->perf_caps.highest_perf; > > + div = caps->highest_perf; > > } > > return (u64)perf * mul / div; > > } > > @@ -184,7 +184,7 @@ static unsigned int cppc_cpufreq_khz_to_perf(struct cppc_cpudata *cpu, > > } else { > > if (!max_khz) > > max_khz = cppc_get_dmi_max_khz(); > > - mul = cpu->perf_caps.highest_perf; > > + mul = caps->highest_perf; > > div = max_khz; > > } > > Applied. Thanks. I applied the previous cppc_cpufreq patch, hopefully it will not clash with this one. Are you going to take care of this driver going forward?
On 01-07-20, 14:16, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 6:52 AM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > On 01-07-20, 12:20, Xin Hao wrote: > > > The 'caps' variable has been defined, so there is no need to get > > > 'highest_perf' value through 'cpu->caps.highest_perf', you can use > > > 'caps->highest_perf' instead. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Xin Hao <xhao@linux.alibaba.com> > > > --- > > > drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c | 4 ++-- > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c > > > index 257d726a4456..051d0e56c67a 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c > > > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c > > > @@ -161,7 +161,7 @@ static unsigned int cppc_cpufreq_perf_to_khz(struct cppc_cpudata *cpu, > > > if (!max_khz) > > > max_khz = cppc_get_dmi_max_khz(); > > > mul = max_khz; > > > - div = cpu->perf_caps.highest_perf; > > > + div = caps->highest_perf; > > > } > > > return (u64)perf * mul / div; > > > } > > > @@ -184,7 +184,7 @@ static unsigned int cppc_cpufreq_khz_to_perf(struct cppc_cpudata *cpu, > > > } else { > > > if (!max_khz) > > > max_khz = cppc_get_dmi_max_khz(); > > > - mul = cpu->perf_caps.highest_perf; > > > + mul = caps->highest_perf; > > > div = max_khz; > > > } > > > > Applied. Thanks. > > I applied the previous cppc_cpufreq patch, hopefully it will not clash > with this one. > > Are you going to take care of this driver going forward? I started picking up the patches for this driver as it was mostly ARM stuff and FWIW, I picked the previous one as well and because it was sent by me, I never replied with the "Applied" message :) Will it be possible for you to drop that one? Or should I drop that now ? There shouldn't be any conflicts for now though.
On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 4:37 AM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote: > > On 01-07-20, 14:16, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 6:52 AM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > > > On 01-07-20, 12:20, Xin Hao wrote: > > > > The 'caps' variable has been defined, so there is no need to get > > > > 'highest_perf' value through 'cpu->caps.highest_perf', you can use > > > > 'caps->highest_perf' instead. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Xin Hao <xhao@linux.alibaba.com> > > > > --- > > > > drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c | 4 ++-- > > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c > > > > index 257d726a4456..051d0e56c67a 100644 > > > > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c > > > > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c > > > > @@ -161,7 +161,7 @@ static unsigned int cppc_cpufreq_perf_to_khz(struct cppc_cpudata *cpu, > > > > if (!max_khz) > > > > max_khz = cppc_get_dmi_max_khz(); > > > > mul = max_khz; > > > > - div = cpu->perf_caps.highest_perf; > > > > + div = caps->highest_perf; > > > > } > > > > return (u64)perf * mul / div; > > > > } > > > > @@ -184,7 +184,7 @@ static unsigned int cppc_cpufreq_khz_to_perf(struct cppc_cpudata *cpu, > > > > } else { > > > > if (!max_khz) > > > > max_khz = cppc_get_dmi_max_khz(); > > > > - mul = cpu->perf_caps.highest_perf; > > > > + mul = caps->highest_perf; > > > > div = max_khz; > > > > } > > > > > > Applied. Thanks. > > > > I applied the previous cppc_cpufreq patch, hopefully it will not clash > > with this one. > > > > Are you going to take care of this driver going forward? > > I started picking up the patches for this driver as it was mostly ARM > stuff and FWIW, I picked the previous one as well and because it was > sent by me, I never replied with the "Applied" message :) But you could respond to the "applied" message from me. :-) > Will it be possible for you to drop that one? Dropped now and I will be assuming that you will pick up cppc_cpufreq patches from now on. Thanks!
On 02-07-20, 13:06, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> But you could respond to the "applied" message from me. :-)
Haha. I was expecting you to pick the other patches (around governor
cleanup) from me and I completely missed that you picked cppc one as
well. In fact, I had to go to the thread again now to check if you
replied at all :)
Sorry about that. My fault.
Hi everyone: I want to know why my patch didn't merge into upstream ? Thanks 在 2020/7/1 下午12:20, Xin Hao 写道: > The 'caps' variable has been defined, so there is no need to get > 'highest_perf' value through 'cpu->caps.highest_perf', you can use > 'caps->highest_perf' instead. > > Signed-off-by: Xin Hao <xhao@linux.alibaba.com> > --- > drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c > index 257d726a4456..051d0e56c67a 100644 > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c > @@ -161,7 +161,7 @@ static unsigned int cppc_cpufreq_perf_to_khz(struct cppc_cpudata *cpu, > if (!max_khz) > max_khz = cppc_get_dmi_max_khz(); > mul = max_khz; > - div = cpu->perf_caps.highest_perf; > + div = caps->highest_perf; > } > return (u64)perf * mul / div; > } > @@ -184,7 +184,7 @@ static unsigned int cppc_cpufreq_khz_to_perf(struct cppc_cpudata *cpu, > } else { > if (!max_khz) > max_khz = cppc_get_dmi_max_khz(); > - mul = cpu->perf_caps.highest_perf; > + mul = caps->highest_perf; > div = max_khz; > } >
On 04-08-20, 10:37, Xin Hao wrote: > Hi everyone: > > I want to know why my patch didn't merge into upstream ? I have sent a pull request earlier today to Rafael and this will get merged in the next pull request Rafael will send to Linus.
Thanks 在 2020/8/4 下午12:37, Viresh Kumar 写道: > On 04-08-20, 10:37, Xin Hao wrote: >> Hi everyone: >> >> I want to know why my patch didn't merge into upstream ? > I have sent a pull request earlier today to Rafael and this will get > merged in the next pull request Rafael will send to Linus. >
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c index 257d726a4456..051d0e56c67a 100644 --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c @@ -161,7 +161,7 @@ static unsigned int cppc_cpufreq_perf_to_khz(struct cppc_cpudata *cpu, if (!max_khz) max_khz = cppc_get_dmi_max_khz(); mul = max_khz; - div = cpu->perf_caps.highest_perf; + div = caps->highest_perf; } return (u64)perf * mul / div; } @@ -184,7 +184,7 @@ static unsigned int cppc_cpufreq_khz_to_perf(struct cppc_cpudata *cpu, } else { if (!max_khz) max_khz = cppc_get_dmi_max_khz(); - mul = cpu->perf_caps.highest_perf; + mul = caps->highest_perf; div = max_khz; }
The 'caps' variable has been defined, so there is no need to get 'highest_perf' value through 'cpu->caps.highest_perf', you can use 'caps->highest_perf' instead. Signed-off-by: Xin Hao <xhao@linux.alibaba.com> --- drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)