[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160207154024.GF3808@vireshk>
Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2016 21:10:24 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Cc: Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>,
Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@...aro.org>,
Saravana Kannan <skannan@...eaurora.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] cpufreq: governor: Simplify cpufreq_governor_limits()
On 07-02-16, 16:23, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.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@...el.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@...aro.org>
--
viresh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists