acpi_processor_ppc_notifier() can live without using CPUFREQ_START (which is gonna be removed soon). Simplify it a bit.
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar viresh.kumar@linaro.org --- Rebased over: https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=148359167516831&w=2
drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c | 8 +++----- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c b/drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c index f0b4a981b8d3..1ceea1143a1c 100644 --- a/drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c +++ b/drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c @@ -75,14 +75,12 @@ 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) { - ignore_ppc = 0; - return 0; - } - if (ignore_ppc) return 0;
+ if (ignore_ppc < 0) + ignore_ppc = 0; + if (event != CPUFREQ_ADJUST) return 0;
Its not used anymore, remove it.
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar viresh.kumar@linaro.org --- drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 3 --- drivers/cpufreq/ppc_cbe_cpufreq_pmi.c | 3 --- include/linux/cpufreq.h | 1 - 3 files changed, 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c index 53268bebdf1e..408479540566 100644 --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c @@ -1246,9 +1246,6 @@ static int cpufreq_online(unsigned int cpu) write_unlock_irqrestore(&cpufreq_driver_lock, flags); }
- blocking_notifier_call_chain(&cpufreq_policy_notifier_list, - CPUFREQ_START, policy); - ret = cpufreq_init_policy(policy); if (ret) { pr_err("%s: Failed to initialize policy for cpu: %d (%d)\n", diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/ppc_cbe_cpufreq_pmi.c b/drivers/cpufreq/ppc_cbe_cpufreq_pmi.c index dc112481a408..eeaa92251512 100644 --- a/drivers/cpufreq/ppc_cbe_cpufreq_pmi.c +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/ppc_cbe_cpufreq_pmi.c @@ -100,9 +100,6 @@ static int pmi_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, /* Should this really be called for CPUFREQ_ADJUST and CPUFREQ_NOTIFY * policy events?) */ - if (event == CPUFREQ_START) - return 0; - node = cbe_cpu_to_node(policy->cpu);
pr_debug("got notified, event=%lu, node=%u\n", event, node); diff --git a/include/linux/cpufreq.h b/include/linux/cpufreq.h index 0183986b3ba6..61009c0b82c8 100644 --- a/include/linux/cpufreq.h +++ b/include/linux/cpufreq.h @@ -415,7 +415,6 @@ static inline void cpufreq_resume(void) {} /* Policy Notifiers */ #define CPUFREQ_ADJUST (0) #define CPUFREQ_NOTIFY (1) -#define CPUFREQ_START (2)
#ifdef CONFIG_CPU_FREQ int cpufreq_register_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned int list);
On Thursday, January 05, 2017 11:34:30 AM Viresh Kumar wrote:
acpi_processor_ppc_notifier() can live without using CPUFREQ_START (which is gonna be removed soon).
That should be "acpi_processor_ppc_notifier() can live without using CPUFREQ_START ..., because X".
X is obviously missing.
Simplify it a bit.
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar viresh.kumar@linaro.org
Rebased over: https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=148359167516831&w=2
drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c | 8 +++----- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c b/drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c index f0b4a981b8d3..1ceea1143a1c 100644 --- a/drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c +++ b/drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c @@ -75,14 +75,12 @@ 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) {
ignore_ppc = 0;return 0;- }
- if (ignore_ppc) return 0;
- if (ignore_ppc < 0)
ignore_ppc = 0;
And the above looks like dead code to me (we have returned already if ignore_ppc is negative), so in particular ignore_ppc is never going to become 0 when it was negative initially.
if (event != CPUFREQ_ADJUST) return 0;
Thanks, Rafael
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; - }
if (ignore_ppc) return 0;
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?
if (ignore_ppc) return 0;--
Thanks, Rafael
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
linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org
-
Rafael J. Wysocki -
Rafael J. Wysocki -
Viresh Kumar