From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 1/2] ACPI: processor_perflib: Simplify code and stop using CPUFREQ_START Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 08:49:06 +0100 Message-ID: References: <1547465.PvRbYVlVrB@aspire.rjw.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Viresh Kumar , Rafael Wysocki , Len Brown , Lists linaro-kernel , Linux PM , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Vincent Guittot , ACPI Devel Maling List List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 8:07 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 5:29 AM, Viresh Kumar 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 >> >> --- >> 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