linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] cpufreq: CPPC: simply the code access 'highest_perf' value in cppc_perf

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 2 Jul 2020 08:07:47 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.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 01-07-20, 14:16, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> 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?

I started picking up the patches for this driver as it was mostly ARM
stuff and FWIW, I picked the previous one as well and because it was
sent by me, I never replied with the "Applied" message :)

Will it be possible for you to drop that one? Or should I drop that
now ? There shouldn't be any conflicts for now though.

-- 
viresh