[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <04a18937-bb11-736f-2cb3-0cb76a25bcc7@arm.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2022 11:16:29 +0100
From: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rafael@...nel.org,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: check only freq_table in __resolve_freq()
On 8/12/22 05:05, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 11-08-22, 17:54, Lukasz Luba wrote:
>> The there is no need to check if the cpufreq driver implements callback
>
> s/The there/There/
>
>> cpufreq_driver::target_index. The logic in the __resolve_freq uses
>> the frequency table available in the policy. It doesn't matter if the
>> driver provides 'target_index' or 'target' callback. It just has to
>> populate the 'policy->freq_table'.
>>
>> Thus, check only frequency table during the frequency resolving call.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com>
>> ---
>> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
>> index 7820c4e74289..69b3d61852ac 100644
>> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
>> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
>> @@ -532,7 +532,7 @@ static unsigned int __resolve_freq(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
>>
>> target_freq = clamp_val(target_freq, policy->min, policy->max);
>>
>> - if (!cpufreq_driver->target_index)
>> + if (!policy->freq_table)
>> return target_freq;
>>
>> idx = cpufreq_frequency_table_target(policy, target_freq, relation);
>
> Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
>
Thanks Viresh! I'll resend this patch w/ fixed description and your ACK
Powered by blists - more mailing lists