[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210830051108.xgfwp2uvh724syeu@vireshk-i7>
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2021 10:41:08 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: Hector Yuan <hector.yuan@...iatek.com>
Cc: linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, wsd_upstream@...iatek.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v14 3/3] cpufreq: mediatek-hw: Add support for CPUFREQ HW
On 28-08-21, 23:01, Hector Yuan wrote:
> +static int mtk_cpu_resources_init(struct platform_device *pdev,
> + struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
> + const u16 *offsets)
> +{
> + struct mtk_cpufreq_data *data;
> + struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
> + void __iomem *base;
> + int ret, i;
> + int index;
> +
> + data = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*data), GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!data)
> + return -ENOMEM;
> +
> + index = of_perf_domain_get_sharing_cpumask(policy->cpu, "performance-domains",
> + "#performance-domain-cells",
> + policy->cpus);
You pass CPU here, while the first patch accepts index. Does this even work? Or
work just by chance ?
--
viresh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists