[PATCH 0/2] cpufreq: Update function comment and document

[PATCH 0/2] cpufreq: Update function comment and document

[Tang Yizhou]

Tang Yizhou (2):
  cpufreq: Fix a comment in cpufreq_policy_free
  doc/cpufreq: Update core.rst

 Documentation/cpu-freq/core.rst | 6 +++---
 drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c       | 2 +-
 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

-- 
2.17.1

[PATCH 1/2] cpufreq: Fix a comment in cpufreq_policy_free

[Tang Yizhou]

The comment is inconsistent with the block_notifier_call_chain() call,
so fix it.

Signed-off-by: Tang Yizhou <tangyizhou@huawei.com>
---
 drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
index e338d2f010fe..8f753675e4a2 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
@@ -1296,7 +1296,7 @@ static void cpufreq_policy_free(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
 
 	if (policy->max_freq_req) {
 		/*
-		 * CPUFREQ_CREATE_POLICY notification is sent only after
+		 * CPUFREQ_REMOVE_POLICY notification is sent only after
 		 * successfully adding max_freq_req request.
 		 */
 		blocking_notifier_call_chain(&cpufreq_policy_notifier_list,
-- 
2.17.1

[PATCH 2/2] doc/cpufreq: Update core.rst

[Tang Yizhou]

As the definition of struct cpufreq_freqs has changed, update core.rst
with the new first member of struct cpufreq_freqs.

Signed-off-by: Tang Yizhou <tangyizhou@huawei.com>
---
 Documentation/cpu-freq/core.rst | 6 +++---
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/cpu-freq/core.rst b/Documentation/cpu-freq/core.rst
index 33cb90bd1d8f..4ceef8e7217c 100644
--- a/Documentation/cpu-freq/core.rst
+++ b/Documentation/cpu-freq/core.rst
@@ -73,12 +73,12 @@ CPUFREQ_POSTCHANGE.
 The third argument is a struct cpufreq_freqs with the following
 values:
 
-=====	===========================
-cpu	number of the affected CPU
+======	======================================
+policy	a pointer to the struct cpufreq_policy
 old	old frequency
 new	new frequency
 flags	flags of the cpufreq driver
-=====	===========================
+======	======================================
 
 3. CPUFreq Table Generation with Operating Performance Point (OPP)
 ==================================================================
-- 
2.17.1

Re: [PATCH 2/2] doc/cpufreq: Update core.rst

[Viresh Kumar]

On 30-11-21, 23:15, Tang Yizhou wrote:
> As the definition of struct cpufreq_freqs has changed, update core.rst
> with the new first member of struct cpufreq_freqs.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Tang Yizhou <tangyizhou@huawei.com>
> ---
>  Documentation/cpu-freq/core.rst | 6 +++---
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/cpu-freq/core.rst b/Documentation/cpu-freq/core.rst
> index 33cb90bd1d8f..4ceef8e7217c 100644
> --- a/Documentation/cpu-freq/core.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/cpu-freq/core.rst
> @@ -73,12 +73,12 @@ CPUFREQ_POSTCHANGE.
>  The third argument is a struct cpufreq_freqs with the following
>  values:
>  
> -=====	===========================
> -cpu	number of the affected CPU
> +======	======================================
> +policy	a pointer to the struct cpufreq_policy
>  old	old frequency
>  new	new frequency
>  flags	flags of the cpufreq driver
> -=====	===========================
> +======	======================================
>  
>  3. CPUFreq Table Generation with Operating Performance Point (OPP)
>  ==================================================================

Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>

-- 
viresh

Re: [PATCH 1/2] cpufreq: Fix a comment in cpufreq_policy_free

[Viresh Kumar]

On 30-11-21, 23:15, Tang Yizhou wrote:
> The comment is inconsistent with the block_notifier_call_chain() call,
> so fix it.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Tang Yizhou <tangyizhou@huawei.com>
> ---
>  drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> index e338d2f010fe..8f753675e4a2 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> @@ -1296,7 +1296,7 @@ static void cpufreq_policy_free(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
>  
>  	if (policy->max_freq_req) {
>  		/*
> -		 * CPUFREQ_CREATE_POLICY notification is sent only after
> +		 * CPUFREQ_REMOVE_POLICY notification is sent only after

No, the earlier comment is correct. It says when the CREATE notification was
sent and so we need to do the remove here before removing max_freq_req.

>  		 * successfully adding max_freq_req request.
>  		 */
>  		blocking_notifier_call_chain(&cpufreq_policy_notifier_list,
> -- 
> 2.17.1

-- 
viresh

Re: [PATCH 1/2] cpufreq: Fix a comment in cpufreq_policy_free

[Tang Yizhou]

On 2021/12/1 12:22, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 30-11-21, 23:15, Tang Yizhou wrote:
>> The comment is inconsistent with the block_notifier_call_chain() call,
>> so fix it.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Tang Yizhou <tangyizhou@huawei.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 2 +-
>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
>> index e338d2f010fe..8f753675e4a2 100644
>> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
>> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
>> @@ -1296,7 +1296,7 @@ static void cpufreq_policy_free(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
>>  
>>  	if (policy->max_freq_req) {
>>  		/*
>> -		 * CPUFREQ_CREATE_POLICY notification is sent only after
>> +		 * CPUFREQ_REMOVE_POLICY notification is sent only after
> 
> No, the earlier comment is correct. It says when the CREATE notification was
> sent and so we need to do the remove here before removing max_freq_req.

I see. I was confused at the first time. Perhaps it is better to both comment when
CPUFREQ_CREATE_POLICY and CPUFREQ_REMOVE_POLICY notification is sent.

> 
>>  		 * successfully adding max_freq_req request.
>>  		 */
>>  		blocking_notifier_call_chain(&cpufreq_policy_notifier_list,
>> -- 
>> 2.17.1
> 

Tang

Re: [PATCH 1/2] cpufreq: Fix a comment in cpufreq_policy_free

[Viresh Kumar]

On 01-12-21, 14:39, Tang Yizhou wrote:
> On 2021/12/1 12:22, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > On 30-11-21, 23:15, Tang Yizhou wrote:
> >> The comment is inconsistent with the block_notifier_call_chain() call,
> >> so fix it.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Tang Yizhou <tangyizhou@huawei.com>
> >> ---
> >>  drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 2 +-
> >>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> >> index e338d2f010fe..8f753675e4a2 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> >> @@ -1296,7 +1296,7 @@ static void cpufreq_policy_free(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
> >>  
> >>  	if (policy->max_freq_req) {
> >>  		/*
> >> -		 * CPUFREQ_CREATE_POLICY notification is sent only after
> >> +		 * CPUFREQ_REMOVE_POLICY notification is sent only after
> > 
> > No, the earlier comment is correct. It says when the CREATE notification was
> > sent and so we need to do the remove here before removing max_freq_req.
> 
> I see. I was confused at the first time. Perhaps it is better to both comment when
> CPUFREQ_CREATE_POLICY and CPUFREQ_REMOVE_POLICY notification is sent.

I am fine with elaborating the comment, sure. Please send another patch for
that.

-- 
viresh