[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0iRW25n9CqvJ=ODbVh2osocx+wJVz62GqaWV9m4sdL12g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2020 14:16:31 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc: Xin Hao <xhao@...ux.alibaba.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] cpufreq: CPPC: simply the code access 'highest_perf'
value in cppc_perf_caps struct
On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 6:52 AM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org> wrote:
>
> On 01-07-20, 12:20, Xin Hao wrote:
> > The 'caps' variable has been defined, so there is no need to get
> > 'highest_perf' value through 'cpu->caps.highest_perf', you can use
> > 'caps->highest_perf' instead.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Xin Hao <xhao@...ux.alibaba.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c | 4 ++--
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c
> > index 257d726a4456..051d0e56c67a 100644
> > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c
> > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c
> > @@ -161,7 +161,7 @@ static unsigned int cppc_cpufreq_perf_to_khz(struct cppc_cpudata *cpu,
> > if (!max_khz)
> > max_khz = cppc_get_dmi_max_khz();
> > mul = max_khz;
> > - div = cpu->perf_caps.highest_perf;
> > + div = caps->highest_perf;
> > }
> > return (u64)perf * mul / div;
> > }
> > @@ -184,7 +184,7 @@ static unsigned int cppc_cpufreq_khz_to_perf(struct cppc_cpudata *cpu,
> > } else {
> > if (!max_khz)
> > max_khz = cppc_get_dmi_max_khz();
> > - mul = cpu->perf_caps.highest_perf;
> > + mul = caps->highest_perf;
> > div = max_khz;
> > }
>
> Applied. Thanks.
I applied the previous cppc_cpufreq patch, hopefully it will not clash
with this one.
Are you going to take care of this driver going forward?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists