linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 01/17] PM: EM: Refactor em_cpufreq_update

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0jK-5o=YWVz+v52Puu_QgFt5EE=iQVaPhNL9i+zhxgtRQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 27 Mar 2023 19:16:23 +0200
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To:     Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        rafael@...nel.org, dietmar.eggemann@....com, rui.zhang@...el.com,
        amit.kucheria@...durent.com, amit.kachhap@...il.com,
        daniel.lezcano@...aro.org, viresh.kumar@...aro.org,
        len.brown@...el.com, pavel@....cz, Pierre.Gondois@....com,
        ionela.voinescu@....com, rostedt@...dmis.org, mhiramat@...nel.org,
        Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/17] PM: EM: Refactor em_cpufreq_update_efficiencies() arguments

On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 11:34 AM Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com> wrote:
>
> In order to prepare the code for the modifiable EM perf_state table,
> refactor existing function em_cpufreq_update_efficiencies().
>
> Signed-off-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com>

Quite obviously, this series needs ACKs from the Energy Model people.

> ---
>  kernel/power/energy_model.c | 8 +++-----
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/power/energy_model.c b/kernel/power/energy_model.c
> index f82111837b8d..265d51a948d4 100644
> --- a/kernel/power/energy_model.c
> +++ b/kernel/power/energy_model.c
> @@ -240,10 +240,10 @@ static int em_create_pd(struct device *dev, int nr_states,
>         return 0;
>  }
>
> -static void em_cpufreq_update_efficiencies(struct device *dev)
> +static void
> +em_cpufreq_update_efficiencies(struct device *dev, struct em_perf_state *table)
>  {
>         struct em_perf_domain *pd = dev->em_pd;
> -       struct em_perf_state *table;
>         struct cpufreq_policy *policy;
>         int found = 0;
>         int i;
> @@ -257,8 +257,6 @@ static void em_cpufreq_update_efficiencies(struct device *dev)
>                 return;
>         }
>
> -       table = pd->table;
> -
>         for (i = 0; i < pd->nr_perf_states; i++) {
>                 if (!(table[i].flags & EM_PERF_STATE_INEFFICIENT))
>                         continue;
> @@ -400,7 +398,7 @@ int em_dev_register_perf_domain(struct device *dev, unsigned int nr_states,
>
>         dev->em_pd->flags |= flags;
>
> -       em_cpufreq_update_efficiencies(dev);
> +       em_cpufreq_update_efficiencies(dev, dev->em_pd->table);
>
>         em_debug_create_pd(dev);
>         dev_info(dev, "EM: created perf domain\n");
> --
> 2.17.1
>