| Message ID | 1465939.LaiBibfCQO@vostro.rjw.lan (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted, archived |
| Delegated to: | Rafael Wysocki |
| Headers | show |
On 07-02-16, 16:23, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> > > Use the observation that cpufreq_governor_limits() doesn't have to > get to the policy object it wants to manipulate by walking the > reference chain cdbs->policy_dbs->policy, as the final pointer is > actually equal to its argument, and make it access the policy > object directy via its argument. > > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> > --- > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c | 17 ++++++++--------- > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) Why the hell did we write it that way earlier ? :) Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
On Sunday, February 07, 2016 09:10:24 PM Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 07-02-16, 16:23, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> > > > > Use the observation that cpufreq_governor_limits() doesn't have to > > get to the policy object it wants to manipulate by walking the > > reference chain cdbs->policy_dbs->policy, as the final pointer is > > actually equal to its argument, and make it access the policy > > object directy via its argument. > > > > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> > > --- > > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c | 17 ++++++++--------- > > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) > > Why the hell did we write it that way earlier ? :) Honestly, I have no idea. > Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> Thanks! -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pm" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Index: linux-pm/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c =================================================================== --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c +++ linux-pm/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c @@ -518,20 +518,19 @@ static int cpufreq_governor_limits(struc { struct dbs_governor *gov = dbs_governor_of(policy); struct cpu_dbs_info *cdbs = gov->get_cpu_cdbs(policy->cpu); + struct policy_dbs_info *policy_dbs = cdbs->policy_dbs; /* State should be equivalent to START */ - if (!cdbs->policy_dbs || !cdbs->policy_dbs->policy) + if (!policy_dbs || !policy_dbs->policy) return -EBUSY; - mutex_lock(&cdbs->policy_dbs->timer_mutex); - if (policy->max < cdbs->policy_dbs->policy->cur) - __cpufreq_driver_target(cdbs->policy_dbs->policy, policy->max, - CPUFREQ_RELATION_H); - else if (policy->min > cdbs->policy_dbs->policy->cur) - __cpufreq_driver_target(cdbs->policy_dbs->policy, policy->min, - CPUFREQ_RELATION_L); + mutex_lock(&policy_dbs->timer_mutex); + if (policy->max < policy->cur) + __cpufreq_driver_target(policy, policy->max, CPUFREQ_RELATION_H); + else if (policy->min > policy->cur) + __cpufreq_driver_target(policy, policy->min, CPUFREQ_RELATION_L); dbs_check_cpu(policy); - mutex_unlock(&cdbs->policy_dbs->timer_mutex); + mutex_unlock(&policy_dbs->timer_mutex); return 0; }