[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <99d25f02-e595-d4e8-25c4-3c4c206f79a6@codeaurora.org>
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2018 14:57:19 +0530
From: Taniya Das <tdas@...eaurora.org>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@...eaurora.org>,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, robh@...nel.org,
skannan@...eaurora.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
evgreen@...gle.com, Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 2/2] cpufreq: qcom-hw: Add support for QCOM cpufreq HW
driver
Hello Viresh,
On 12/4/2018 10:42 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> Hi Taniya,
>
> Sorry that I haven't been reviewing it much from last few iterations as I was
> letting others get this into a better shape. Thanks for your efforts..
>
> On 02-12-18, 09:25, Taniya Das wrote:
>> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/qcom-cpufreq-hw.c
>
>> +struct cpufreq_qcom {
>> + struct cpufreq_frequency_table *table;
>> + void __iomem *perf_state_reg;
>> + cpumask_t related_cpus;
>> +};
>> +
>> +static struct cpufreq_qcom *qcom_freq_domain_map[NR_CPUS];
>
> Now that the code is much more simplified, I am not sure if you need this
> per-cpu structure at all. The only place where you are using it is in
> qcom_cpufreq_hw_cpu_init() and probe(). Why not merge qcom_cpu_resources_init()
> completely into qcom_cpufreq_hw_cpu_init() and get rid of this structure
> entirely ?
>
Yes, we still would require the per-cpu.
--
QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member
of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation.
--
Powered by blists - more mailing lists