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]

Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0jbsinLBZqNiCPH0NFk0b8H4Uxuf8U5y0R5nkxUH8tX8g@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 2 Jul 2020 13:06:28 +0200
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To:     Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        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 Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 4:37 AM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org> wrote:
>
> 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 :)

But you could respond to the "applied" message from me. :-)

> Will it be possible for you to drop that one?

Dropped now and I will be assuming that you will pick up cppc_cpufreq
patches from now on.

Thanks!