| Message ID | e608c76ea40e4f0d50bfe821174dfebef924e35b.1485750547.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Mainlined |
| Delegated to: | Rafael Wysocki |
| Headers | show |
On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 5:29 AM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote: > acpi_processor_ppc_notifier() can live without using CPUFREQ_START > (which is gonna be removed soon), as it is only used while setting > ignore_ppc to 0. This can be done with the help of "ignore_ppc < 0" > check alone. The notifier function anyway ignores all events except > CPUFREQ_ADJUST and dropping CPUFREQ_START wouldn't harm at all. > > Once CPUFREQ_START event is removed from the cpufreq core, > acpi_processor_ppc_notifier() will get called only for CPUFREQ_NOTIFY or > CPUFREQ_ADJUST event. Drop the return statement from the first if block > to make sure we don't ignore any such events. > > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> > > --- > V1->V2: > - Improved changelog > - Don't move the first if block to a later point, as it becomes useless > then. > --- > drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c | 4 +--- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c b/drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c > index f0b4a981b8d3..18b72eec3507 100644 > --- a/drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c > +++ b/drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c > @@ -75,10 +75,8 @@ static int acpi_processor_ppc_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, > struct acpi_processor *pr; > unsigned int ppc = 0; > > - if (event == CPUFREQ_START && ignore_ppc <= 0) { > + if (ignore_ppc < 0) > ignore_ppc = 0; > - return 0; > - } Don't we want to return from here if ignore_ppc is 0? > > if (ignore_ppc) > return 0; > -- Thanks, Rafael -- 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
On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 8:07 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@kernel.org> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 5:29 AM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote: >> acpi_processor_ppc_notifier() can live without using CPUFREQ_START >> (which is gonna be removed soon), as it is only used while setting >> ignore_ppc to 0. This can be done with the help of "ignore_ppc < 0" >> check alone. The notifier function anyway ignores all events except >> CPUFREQ_ADJUST and dropping CPUFREQ_START wouldn't harm at all. >> >> Once CPUFREQ_START event is removed from the cpufreq core, >> acpi_processor_ppc_notifier() will get called only for CPUFREQ_NOTIFY or >> CPUFREQ_ADJUST event. Drop the return statement from the first if block >> to make sure we don't ignore any such events. >> >> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> >> >> --- >> V1->V2: >> - Improved changelog >> - Don't move the first if block to a later point, as it becomes useless >> then. >> --- >> drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c | 4 +--- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c b/drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c >> index f0b4a981b8d3..18b72eec3507 100644 >> --- a/drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c >> +++ b/drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c >> @@ -75,10 +75,8 @@ static int acpi_processor_ppc_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, >> struct acpi_processor *pr; >> unsigned int ppc = 0; >> >> - if (event == CPUFREQ_START && ignore_ppc <= 0) { >> + if (ignore_ppc < 0) >> ignore_ppc = 0; >> - return 0; >> - } > > Don't we want to return from here if ignore_ppc is 0? I actually wanted to say "was negative" here, not sure why I said the above in the end. Anyway, the patch looks correct now. Thanks, Rafael -- 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
diff --git a/drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c b/drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c index f0b4a981b8d3..18b72eec3507 100644 --- a/drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c +++ b/drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c @@ -75,10 +75,8 @@ static int acpi_processor_ppc_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, struct acpi_processor *pr; unsigned int ppc = 0; - if (event == CPUFREQ_START && ignore_ppc <= 0) { + if (ignore_ppc < 0) ignore_ppc = 0; - return 0; - } if (ignore_ppc) return 0;
acpi_processor_ppc_notifier() can live without using CPUFREQ_START (which is gonna be removed soon), as it is only used while setting ignore_ppc to 0. This can be done with the help of "ignore_ppc < 0" check alone. The notifier function anyway ignores all events except CPUFREQ_ADJUST and dropping CPUFREQ_START wouldn't harm at all. Once CPUFREQ_START event is removed from the cpufreq core, acpi_processor_ppc_notifier() will get called only for CPUFREQ_NOTIFY or CPUFREQ_ADJUST event. Drop the return statement from the first if block to make sure we don't ignore any such events. Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> --- V1->V2: - Improved changelog - Don't move the first if block to a later point, as it becomes useless then. --- drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c | 4 +--- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)