Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 20 May 2014 09:44:15 -0700 | Subject | Re: [PATCH V3 1/4] cpufreq: handle calls to ->target_index() in separate routine | From | Doug Anderson <> |
| |
Viresh,
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 9:51 PM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote: > Handling calls to ->target_index() has got complex over time and might become > more complex. So, its better to take target_index() bits out in another routine > __target_index() for better code readability. Shouldn't have any functional > impact. > > Tested-by: Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com> > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> > --- > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 56 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------- > 1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > index a05c921..9bf12a2 100644 > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > @@ -1816,12 +1816,43 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(cpufreq_unregister_notifier); > * GOVERNORS * > *********************************************************************/ > > +static int __target_index(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, > + struct cpufreq_frequency_table *freq_table, int index) > +{ > + struct cpufreq_freqs freqs; > + int retval = -EINVAL; > + bool notify; > + > + notify = !(cpufreq_driver->flags & CPUFREQ_ASYNC_NOTIFICATION); > + > + if (notify) { > + freqs.old = policy->cur; > + freqs.new = freq_table[index].frequency; > + freqs.flags = 0; > + > + pr_debug("%s: cpu: %d, oldfreq: %u, new freq: %u\n", > + __func__, policy->cpu, freqs.old, freqs.new); > + > + cpufreq_freq_transition_begin(policy, &freqs); > + } > + > + retval = cpufreq_driver->target_index(policy, index); > + if (retval) > + pr_err("%s: Failed to change cpu frequency: %d\n", > + __func__, retval); > + > + if (notify) > + cpufreq_freq_transition_end(policy, &freqs, retval); > + > + return retval; > +} > + > int __cpufreq_driver_target(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, > unsigned int target_freq, > unsigned int relation) > { > - int retval = -EINVAL; > unsigned int old_target_freq = target_freq; > + int retval = -EINVAL;
I'm not sure that this shuffling was really necessary, but I guess it doesn't hurt. ...and I guess a CL that's shuffling code anyway is the place to put it...
Reviewed-by: Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
| |