From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F319CC31E40 for ; Tue, 6 Aug 2019 08:01:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C79F32070C for ; Tue, 6 Aug 2019 08:01:18 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1565078478; bh=WXvtMO6UZCwNOFHSyUuDfZy5/bYB9El1apxJuXfBWrw=; h=References:In-Reply-To:From:Date:Subject:To:Cc:List-ID:From; b=YdhKyrZKmvfOvK2E6+Ylc3PCRPVvpsCFMV7c/f9k6ManK6iEsV1lso69DbbfAOpQh Icvu/BW7iEta1xp0cXo71oTSm9UhSR23zTPK9ClAfWz43RTLtbyJC+KTXsvtOO7Qo+ KminnrUcCnfSord+ja36nE9TM4Aq29BaqGRFiJpE= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728975AbfHFIBS (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Aug 2019 04:01:18 -0400 Received: from mail-ot1-f66.google.com ([209.85.210.66]:45759 "EHLO mail-ot1-f66.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727259AbfHFIBS (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Aug 2019 04:01:18 -0400 Received: by mail-ot1-f66.google.com with SMTP id x21so24815258otq.12; Tue, 06 Aug 2019 01:01:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=zUs0xIhgTH6wwFy+pIi473fY3cNI70KH0eyUmBXIqyE=; b=hP8bMCfWQVwlcM70vKGu2JyEvNDXeZJQRciBJNJrLwRQ1mdtdKPz6jVTmmc8G+7lu+ 0YWu+RGe5Fk+pF7SZlK4bQjLghJsSOYKlj5FMZwQkZ75m0mQPRX7cbiIgz6tNEp3ICd9 nX1i2/jQv5Ijnh/AMDuBYQ7zjLOdlgNWNQsbs5380b0rOOsVuLf8Zz6u1ujGZyxfe/QD eiJCkwp/rJTO7mIOnLUcqxCZ67lOcA9Ze2ktcIGQd6hqRQ/AoEvIkmbjKGlnKBqQTbuL ABiB96muXABEgh6ANtCSey0R1XljjY5IzzYJ8Rq+ibE/Es/q3ScCRxnGDcztrNnOcYwV dSBA== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVpyVaDnKRQa9AanlVgzfj1eS/9ssd6Ri4yEh72QxJSXFDSfv6U Q8Gi7KyD6nMbVNte2uVW44MMB2XFUVKH8QksvQQ= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqywCxq1EnPd1Un9O/Ra9WUoJF8y5q5e6rNxxbDtgntcVTWejmBx8iAPavHTpNCItROyJW0urUxcpUKxGieVl4A= X-Received: by 2002:a9d:6b96:: with SMTP id b22mr2075090otq.262.1565078476888; Tue, 06 Aug 2019 01:01:16 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <86dc4a082ea00c278c0e1d7f3fcbdc4ab9af2eec.1563862014.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org> <1782403.O7LH3UnqfR@kreacher> <20190806043904.dbpon4qf3mfsm4vz@vireshk-i7> In-Reply-To: <20190806043904.dbpon4qf3mfsm4vz@vireshk-i7> From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2019 10:01:05 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 05/10] ACPI: cpufreq: Switch to QoS requests instead of cpufreq notifier To: Viresh Kumar Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Len Brown , Zhang Rui , Robert Moore , Erik Schmauss , Linux PM , Vincent Guittot , ACPI Devel Maling List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , "open list:ACPI COMPONENT ARCHITECTURE (ACPICA)" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 6:39 AM Viresh Kumar wrote: > > On 05-08-19, 11:42, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Tuesday, July 23, 2019 8:14:05 AM CEST Viresh Kumar wrote: > > > @@ -310,8 +339,11 @@ static int __init acpi_processor_driver_init(void) > > > cpuhp_setup_state_nocalls(CPUHP_ACPI_CPUDRV_DEAD, "acpi/cpu-drv:dead", > > > NULL, acpi_soft_cpu_dead); > > > > > > - acpi_thermal_cpufreq_init(); > > > - acpi_processor_ppc_init(); > > > + if (!cpufreq_register_notifier(&acpi_processor_notifier_block, > > > + CPUFREQ_POLICY_NOTIFIER)) { > > > + acpi_processor_cpufreq_init = true; > > > > Can't that be set/cleared by acpi_processor_notifier() itself? > > This is required to be done only once at initialization and setting it > to true again and again on every invocation of the notifier callback > doesn't look right. > > I have updated the patch based on rest of your suggestions, please see > if it looks okay now. Yes, it does, thanks! [No need to resend, I'll take it from this message.]