[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1365523237.6865.40.camel@joe-AO722>
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2013 09:00:37 -0700
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Platform Driver <platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org>,
Matthew Garrett <matthew.garrett@...ula.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
Rafael Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] Introduce Intel RAPL cooling device driver
On Tue, 2013-04-09 at 05:46 -0700, Jacob Pan wrote:
> RAPL(Running Average Power Limit) interface provides platform software
> with the ability to monitor, control, and get notifications on SOC
> power consumptions.
yet more trivia:
> diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/intel_rapl.c b/drivers/platform/x86/intel_rapl.c
[]
> +static bool rapl_polling_should_cont(void)
> +{
> + unsigned int all_state = 0;
[]
> + return !!all_state;
The !! isn't needed.
!! should only be done when you are returning
int and you need to make sure it's 0 or 1.
It's not here. The return is bool.
return all_state;
The compiler, even icc, will do this internally.
> +static int start_periodic_polling(void)
> +{
> + if (polling_started)
> + goto out;
> + schedule_delayed_work(&rapl_polling_work, 0);
> + polling_started = true;
Should polling_started be device specific (in struct rapl_data ?)
instead of a single instance static?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists