On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 8:07 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki rafael@kernel.org wrote:
On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 5:29 AM, Viresh Kumar viresh.kumar@linaro.org wrote:
acpi_processor_ppc_notifier() can live without using CPUFREQ_START (which is gonna be removed soon), as it is only used while setting ignore_ppc to 0. This can be done with the help of "ignore_ppc < 0" check alone. The notifier function anyway ignores all events except CPUFREQ_ADJUST and dropping CPUFREQ_START wouldn't harm at all.
Once CPUFREQ_START event is removed from the cpufreq core, acpi_processor_ppc_notifier() will get called only for CPUFREQ_NOTIFY or CPUFREQ_ADJUST event. Drop the return statement from the first if block to make sure we don't ignore any such events.
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar viresh.kumar@linaro.org
V1->V2:
- Improved changelog
- Don't move the first if block to a later point, as it becomes useless then.
drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c | 4 +--- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c b/drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c index f0b4a981b8d3..18b72eec3507 100644 --- a/drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c +++ b/drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c @@ -75,10 +75,8 @@ static int acpi_processor_ppc_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, struct acpi_processor *pr; unsigned int ppc = 0;
if (event == CPUFREQ_START && ignore_ppc <= 0) {
if (ignore_ppc < 0) ignore_ppc = 0;
return 0;}Don't we want to return from here if ignore_ppc is 0?
I actually wanted to say "was negative" here, not sure why I said the above in the end.
Anyway, the patch looks correct now.
Thanks, Rafael