[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-id: <5B0B9319.9060709@samsung.com>
Date: Mon, 28 May 2018 14:26:49 +0900
From: Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@...sung.com>
To: Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>,
MyungJoo Ham <myungjoo.ham@...sung.com>
Cc: Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@...sung.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>,
Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/11] PM / devfreq: Init user limits from OPP limits,
not viceversa
Hi,
On 2018년 05월 26일 05:30, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
> Commit ab8f58ad72c4 ("PM / devfreq: Set min/max_freq when adding
> the devfreq device") introduced the initialization of the user
> limits min/max_freq from the lowest/highest available OPPs. Later
> commit f1d981eaecf8 ("PM / devfreq: Use the available min/max
> frequency") added scaling_min/max_freq, which actually represent
> the frequencies of the lowest/highest available OPP. scaling_min/
> max_freq are initialized with the values from min/max_freq, which
> is totally correct in the context, but a bit awkward to read.
>
> Swap the initialization and assign scaling_min/max_freq with the
> OPP freqs and then the user limts min/max_freq with scaling_min/
> max_freq.
>
> Needless to say that this change is a NOP, intended to improve
> readability.
>
> Signed-off-by: Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>
> ---
> drivers/devfreq/devfreq.c | 12 ++++++------
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/devfreq/devfreq.c b/drivers/devfreq/devfreq.c
> index fe2af6aa88fc..0057ef5b0a98 100644
> --- a/drivers/devfreq/devfreq.c
> +++ b/drivers/devfreq/devfreq.c
> @@ -604,21 +604,21 @@ struct devfreq *devfreq_add_device(struct device *dev,
> mutex_lock(&devfreq->lock);
> }
>
> - devfreq->min_freq = find_available_min_freq(devfreq);
> - if (!devfreq->min_freq) {
> + devfreq->scaling_min_freq = find_available_min_freq(devfreq);
> + if (!devfreq->scaling_min_freq) {
> mutex_unlock(&devfreq->lock);
> err = -EINVAL;
> goto err_dev;
> }
> - devfreq->scaling_min_freq = devfreq->min_freq;
> + devfreq->min_freq = devfreq->scaling_min_freq;
>
> - devfreq->max_freq = find_available_max_freq(devfreq);
> - if (!devfreq->max_freq) {
> + devfreq->scaling_max_freq = find_available_max_freq(devfreq);
> + if (!devfreq->scaling_max_freq) {
> mutex_unlock(&devfreq->lock);
> err = -EINVAL;
> goto err_dev;
> }
> - devfreq->scaling_max_freq = devfreq->max_freq;
> + devfreq->max_freq = devfreq->scaling_max_freq;
>
> dev_set_name(&devfreq->dev, "devfreq%d",
> atomic_inc_return(&devfreq_no));
>
I already replied with my Reviewed-by tag. You are missing my tag.
Again,
Reviewed-by: Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@...sung.com>
--
Best Regards,
Chanwoo Choi
Samsung Electronics
Powered by blists - more mailing lists