[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <55BF955E.1030801@linaro.org>
Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2015 18:22:54 +0200
From: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
To: Xunlei Pang <xlpang@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
CC: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
Xunlei Pang <pang.xunlei@....com.cn>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpuidle/coupled: Init cpuidle_device::safe_state_index
On 07/23/2015 02:31 PM, Xunlei Pang wrote:
> From: Xunlei Pang <pang.xunlei@....com.cn>
>
> cpuidle_device::safe_state_index need to be initialized before use,
> so assign the driver's safe_state_index to it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Xunlei Pang <pang.xunlei@....com.cn>
> ---
> drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c | 2 ++
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c b/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c
> index e8e2775..ed5c8efe 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c
> @@ -585,6 +585,8 @@ int cpuidle_register(struct cpuidle_driver *drv,
> */
> if (coupled_cpus)
> device->coupled_cpus = *coupled_cpus;
> +
> + device->safe_state_index = drv->safe_state_index;
Hey, good catch. We are lucky the safe_state_index is always zero.
I think we can simplify the code by removing the safe_state_index from
the cpuidle_device structure and use the one in the cpuidle_driver
structure in coupled.c
--
<http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog
--
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