Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 2 Jul 2020 08:07:47 +0530 | From | Viresh Kumar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3] cpufreq: CPPC: simply the code access 'highest_perf' value in cppc_perf_caps struct |
| |
On 01-07-20, 14:16, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 6:52 AM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > On 01-07-20, 12:20, Xin Hao wrote: > > > The 'caps' variable has been defined, so there is no need to get > > > 'highest_perf' value through 'cpu->caps.highest_perf', you can use > > > 'caps->highest_perf' instead. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Xin Hao <xhao@linux.alibaba.com> > > > --- > > > drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c | 4 ++-- > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c > > > index 257d726a4456..051d0e56c67a 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c > > > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c > > > @@ -161,7 +161,7 @@ static unsigned int cppc_cpufreq_perf_to_khz(struct cppc_cpudata *cpu, > > > if (!max_khz) > > > max_khz = cppc_get_dmi_max_khz(); > > > mul = max_khz; > > > - div = cpu->perf_caps.highest_perf; > > > + div = caps->highest_perf; > > > } > > > return (u64)perf * mul / div; > > > } > > > @@ -184,7 +184,7 @@ static unsigned int cppc_cpufreq_khz_to_perf(struct cppc_cpudata *cpu, > > > } else { > > > if (!max_khz) > > > max_khz = cppc_get_dmi_max_khz(); > > > - mul = cpu->perf_caps.highest_perf; > > > + mul = caps->highest_perf; > > > div = max_khz; > > > } > > > > Applied. Thanks. > > I applied the previous cppc_cpufreq patch, hopefully it will not clash > with this one. > > Are you going to take care of this driver going forward?
I started picking up the patches for this driver as it was mostly ARM stuff and FWIW, I picked the previous one as well and because it was sent by me, I never replied with the "Applied" message :)
Will it be possible for you to drop that one? Or should I drop that now ? There shouldn't be any conflicts for now though.
-- viresh
| |