[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20231003050019.a6mcchw2o2z2wkrh@vireshk-i7>
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2023 10:30:19 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: Sumit Gupta <sumitg@...dia.com>
Cc: rafael@...nel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
treding@...dia.com, jonathanh@...dia.com, bbasu@...dia.com,
amiettinen@...dia.com
Subject: Re: [Patch v2 1/2] cpufreq: tegra194: save CPU data to avoid
repeated SMP calls
On 29-09-23, 19:47, Sumit Gupta wrote:
>
>
> On 28/09/23 12:35, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
> >
> >
> > On 01-09-23, 22:11, Sumit Gupta wrote:
> > > @@ -131,19 +132,10 @@ static int tegra234_get_cpu_ndiv(u32 cpu, u32 cpuid, u32 clusterid, u64 *ndiv)
> > > static void tegra234_set_cpu_ndiv(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, u64 ndiv)
> > > {
> >
> > > + for_each_cpu_and(cpu, policy->cpus, cpu_online_mask)
> >
> > (Yes this is existing code, but ..) you don't need to perform AND with
> > cpu_online_mask as policy->cpus should only contain currently online CPUs.
> >
> > Please check if you ever see it differently.
> >
>
> I think this was kept to be safe.
> Should I removed the AND in v3 or send separate patch?
Sending it separately would be ideal.
--
viresh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists