* [PATCH v3] cpufreq: CPPC: simply the code access 'highest_perf' value in cppc_perf_caps struct
@ 2020-07-01 4:20 Xin Hao
2020-07-01 4:52 ` Viresh Kumar
2020-08-04 2:37 ` Xin Hao
0 siblings, 2 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Xin Hao @ 2020-07-01 4:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: rjw; +Cc: viresh.kumar, xhao, linux-pm, linux-kernel
The 'caps' variable has been defined, so there is no need to get
'highest_perf' value through 'cpu->caps.highest_perf', you can use
'caps->highest_perf' instead.
Signed-off-by: Xin Hao <xhao@linux.alibaba.com>
---
drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c
index 257d726a4456..051d0e56c67a 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c
@@ -161,7 +161,7 @@ static unsigned int cppc_cpufreq_perf_to_khz(struct cppc_cpudata *cpu,
if (!max_khz)
max_khz = cppc_get_dmi_max_khz();
mul = max_khz;
- div = cpu->perf_caps.highest_perf;
+ div = caps->highest_perf;
}
return (u64)perf * mul / div;
}
@@ -184,7 +184,7 @@ static unsigned int cppc_cpufreq_khz_to_perf(struct cppc_cpudata *cpu,
} else {
if (!max_khz)
max_khz = cppc_get_dmi_max_khz();
- mul = cpu->perf_caps.highest_perf;
+ mul = caps->highest_perf;
div = max_khz;
}
--
2.24.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3] cpufreq: CPPC: simply the code access 'highest_perf' value in cppc_perf_caps struct
2020-07-01 4:20 [PATCH v3] cpufreq: CPPC: simply the code access 'highest_perf' value in cppc_perf_caps struct Xin Hao
@ 2020-07-01 4:52 ` Viresh Kumar
2020-07-01 12:16 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2020-08-04 2:37 ` Xin Hao
1 sibling, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Viresh Kumar @ 2020-07-01 4:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Xin Hao; +Cc: rjw, linux-pm, linux-kernel
On 01-07-20, 12:20, Xin Hao wrote:
> The 'caps' variable has been defined, so there is no need to get
> 'highest_perf' value through 'cpu->caps.highest_perf', you can use
> 'caps->highest_perf' instead.
>
> Signed-off-by: Xin Hao <xhao@linux.alibaba.com>
> ---
> drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c
> index 257d726a4456..051d0e56c67a 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c
> @@ -161,7 +161,7 @@ static unsigned int cppc_cpufreq_perf_to_khz(struct cppc_cpudata *cpu,
> if (!max_khz)
> max_khz = cppc_get_dmi_max_khz();
> mul = max_khz;
> - div = cpu->perf_caps.highest_perf;
> + div = caps->highest_perf;
> }
> return (u64)perf * mul / div;
> }
> @@ -184,7 +184,7 @@ static unsigned int cppc_cpufreq_khz_to_perf(struct cppc_cpudata *cpu,
> } else {
> if (!max_khz)
> max_khz = cppc_get_dmi_max_khz();
> - mul = cpu->perf_caps.highest_perf;
> + mul = caps->highest_perf;
> div = max_khz;
> }
Applied. Thanks.
--
viresh
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3] cpufreq: CPPC: simply the code access 'highest_perf' value in cppc_perf_caps struct
2020-07-01 4:52 ` Viresh Kumar
@ 2020-07-01 12:16 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2020-07-02 2:37 ` Viresh Kumar
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Rafael J. Wysocki @ 2020-07-01 12:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Viresh Kumar
Cc: Xin Hao, Rafael J. Wysocki, Linux PM, Linux Kernel Mailing List
On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 6:52 AM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On 01-07-20, 12:20, Xin Hao wrote:
> > The 'caps' variable has been defined, so there is no need to get
> > 'highest_perf' value through 'cpu->caps.highest_perf', you can use
> > 'caps->highest_perf' instead.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Xin Hao <xhao@linux.alibaba.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c | 4 ++--
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c
> > index 257d726a4456..051d0e56c67a 100644
> > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c
> > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c
> > @@ -161,7 +161,7 @@ static unsigned int cppc_cpufreq_perf_to_khz(struct cppc_cpudata *cpu,
> > if (!max_khz)
> > max_khz = cppc_get_dmi_max_khz();
> > mul = max_khz;
> > - div = cpu->perf_caps.highest_perf;
> > + div = caps->highest_perf;
> > }
> > return (u64)perf * mul / div;
> > }
> > @@ -184,7 +184,7 @@ static unsigned int cppc_cpufreq_khz_to_perf(struct cppc_cpudata *cpu,
> > } else {
> > if (!max_khz)
> > max_khz = cppc_get_dmi_max_khz();
> > - mul = cpu->perf_caps.highest_perf;
> > + mul = caps->highest_perf;
> > div = max_khz;
> > }
>
> Applied. Thanks.
I applied the previous cppc_cpufreq patch, hopefully it will not clash
with this one.
Are you going to take care of this driver going forward?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3] cpufreq: CPPC: simply the code access 'highest_perf' value in cppc_perf_caps struct
2020-07-01 12:16 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
@ 2020-07-02 2:37 ` Viresh Kumar
2020-07-02 11:06 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Viresh Kumar @ 2020-07-02 2:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Rafael J. Wysocki
Cc: Xin Hao, Rafael J. Wysocki, Linux PM, Linux Kernel Mailing List
On 01-07-20, 14:16, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 6:52 AM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> > On 01-07-20, 12:20, Xin Hao wrote:
> > > The 'caps' variable has been defined, so there is no need to get
> > > 'highest_perf' value through 'cpu->caps.highest_perf', you can use
> > > 'caps->highest_perf' instead.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Xin Hao <xhao@linux.alibaba.com>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c | 4 ++--
> > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c
> > > index 257d726a4456..051d0e56c67a 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c
> > > @@ -161,7 +161,7 @@ static unsigned int cppc_cpufreq_perf_to_khz(struct cppc_cpudata *cpu,
> > > if (!max_khz)
> > > max_khz = cppc_get_dmi_max_khz();
> > > mul = max_khz;
> > > - div = cpu->perf_caps.highest_perf;
> > > + div = caps->highest_perf;
> > > }
> > > return (u64)perf * mul / div;
> > > }
> > > @@ -184,7 +184,7 @@ static unsigned int cppc_cpufreq_khz_to_perf(struct cppc_cpudata *cpu,
> > > } else {
> > > if (!max_khz)
> > > max_khz = cppc_get_dmi_max_khz();
> > > - mul = cpu->perf_caps.highest_perf;
> > > + mul = caps->highest_perf;
> > > div = max_khz;
> > > }
> >
> > Applied. Thanks.
>
> I applied the previous cppc_cpufreq patch, hopefully it will not clash
> with this one.
>
> Are you going to take care of this driver going forward?
I started picking up the patches for this driver as it was mostly ARM
stuff and FWIW, I picked the previous one as well and because it was
sent by me, I never replied with the "Applied" message :)
Will it be possible for you to drop that one? Or should I drop that
now ? There shouldn't be any conflicts for now though.
--
viresh
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3] cpufreq: CPPC: simply the code access 'highest_perf' value in cppc_perf_caps struct
2020-07-02 2:37 ` Viresh Kumar
@ 2020-07-02 11:06 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2020-07-02 11:09 ` Viresh Kumar
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Rafael J. Wysocki @ 2020-07-02 11:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Viresh Kumar
Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki, Xin Hao, Rafael J. Wysocki, Linux PM,
Linux Kernel Mailing List
On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 4:37 AM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On 01-07-20, 14:16, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 6:52 AM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 01-07-20, 12:20, Xin Hao wrote:
> > > > The 'caps' variable has been defined, so there is no need to get
> > > > 'highest_perf' value through 'cpu->caps.highest_perf', you can use
> > > > 'caps->highest_perf' instead.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Xin Hao <xhao@linux.alibaba.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c | 4 ++--
> > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c
> > > > index 257d726a4456..051d0e56c67a 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c
> > > > @@ -161,7 +161,7 @@ static unsigned int cppc_cpufreq_perf_to_khz(struct cppc_cpudata *cpu,
> > > > if (!max_khz)
> > > > max_khz = cppc_get_dmi_max_khz();
> > > > mul = max_khz;
> > > > - div = cpu->perf_caps.highest_perf;
> > > > + div = caps->highest_perf;
> > > > }
> > > > return (u64)perf * mul / div;
> > > > }
> > > > @@ -184,7 +184,7 @@ static unsigned int cppc_cpufreq_khz_to_perf(struct cppc_cpudata *cpu,
> > > > } else {
> > > > if (!max_khz)
> > > > max_khz = cppc_get_dmi_max_khz();
> > > > - mul = cpu->perf_caps.highest_perf;
> > > > + mul = caps->highest_perf;
> > > > div = max_khz;
> > > > }
> > >
> > > Applied. Thanks.
> >
> > I applied the previous cppc_cpufreq patch, hopefully it will not clash
> > with this one.
> >
> > Are you going to take care of this driver going forward?
>
> I started picking up the patches for this driver as it was mostly ARM
> stuff and FWIW, I picked the previous one as well and because it was
> sent by me, I never replied with the "Applied" message :)
But you could respond to the "applied" message from me. :-)
> Will it be possible for you to drop that one?
Dropped now and I will be assuming that you will pick up cppc_cpufreq
patches from now on.
Thanks!
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3] cpufreq: CPPC: simply the code access 'highest_perf' value in cppc_perf_caps struct
2020-07-02 11:06 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
@ 2020-07-02 11:09 ` Viresh Kumar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Viresh Kumar @ 2020-07-02 11:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Rafael J. Wysocki
Cc: Xin Hao, Rafael J. Wysocki, Linux PM, Linux Kernel Mailing List
On 02-07-20, 13:06, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> But you could respond to the "applied" message from me. :-)
Haha. I was expecting you to pick the other patches (around governor
cleanup) from me and I completely missed that you picked cppc one as
well. In fact, I had to go to the thread again now to check if you
replied at all :)
Sorry about that. My fault.
--
viresh
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3] cpufreq: CPPC: simply the code access 'highest_perf' value in cppc_perf_caps struct
2020-07-01 4:20 [PATCH v3] cpufreq: CPPC: simply the code access 'highest_perf' value in cppc_perf_caps struct Xin Hao
2020-07-01 4:52 ` Viresh Kumar
@ 2020-08-04 2:37 ` Xin Hao
2020-08-04 4:37 ` Viresh Kumar
1 sibling, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Xin Hao @ 2020-08-04 2:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: rjw; +Cc: viresh.kumar, linux-pm, linux-kernel
Hi everyone:
I want to know why my patch didn't merge into upstream ?
Thanks
在 2020/7/1 下午12:20, Xin Hao 写道:
> The 'caps' variable has been defined, so there is no need to get
> 'highest_perf' value through 'cpu->caps.highest_perf', you can use
> 'caps->highest_perf' instead.
>
> Signed-off-by: Xin Hao <xhao@linux.alibaba.com>
> ---
> drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c
> index 257d726a4456..051d0e56c67a 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c
> @@ -161,7 +161,7 @@ static unsigned int cppc_cpufreq_perf_to_khz(struct cppc_cpudata *cpu,
> if (!max_khz)
> max_khz = cppc_get_dmi_max_khz();
> mul = max_khz;
> - div = cpu->perf_caps.highest_perf;
> + div = caps->highest_perf;
> }
> return (u64)perf * mul / div;
> }
> @@ -184,7 +184,7 @@ static unsigned int cppc_cpufreq_khz_to_perf(struct cppc_cpudata *cpu,
> } else {
> if (!max_khz)
> max_khz = cppc_get_dmi_max_khz();
> - mul = cpu->perf_caps.highest_perf;
> + mul = caps->highest_perf;
> div = max_khz;
> }
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3] cpufreq: CPPC: simply the code access 'highest_perf' value in cppc_perf_caps struct
2020-08-04 2:37 ` Xin Hao
@ 2020-08-04 4:37 ` Viresh Kumar
2020-08-04 4:47 ` Xin Hao
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Viresh Kumar @ 2020-08-04 4:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Xin Hao; +Cc: rjw, linux-pm, linux-kernel
On 04-08-20, 10:37, Xin Hao wrote:
> Hi everyone:
>
> I want to know why my patch didn't merge into upstream ?
I have sent a pull request earlier today to Rafael and this will get
merged in the next pull request Rafael will send to Linus.
--
viresh
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3] cpufreq: CPPC: simply the code access 'highest_perf' value in cppc_perf_caps struct
2020-08-04 4:37 ` Viresh Kumar
@ 2020-08-04 4:47 ` Xin Hao
0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Xin Hao @ 2020-08-04 4:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Viresh Kumar; +Cc: rjw, linux-pm, linux-kernel
Thanks
在 2020/8/4 下午12:37, Viresh Kumar 写道:
> On 04-08-20, 10:37, Xin Hao wrote:
>> Hi everyone:
>>
>> I want to know why my patch didn't merge into upstream ?
> I have sent a pull request earlier today to Rafael and this will get
> merged in the next pull request Rafael will send to Linus.
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2020-08-04 4:47 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2020-07-01 4:20 [PATCH v3] cpufreq: CPPC: simply the code access 'highest_perf' value in cppc_perf_caps struct Xin Hao
2020-07-01 4:52 ` Viresh Kumar
2020-07-01 12:16 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2020-07-02 2:37 ` Viresh Kumar
2020-07-02 11:06 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2020-07-02 11:09 ` Viresh Kumar
2020-08-04 2:37 ` Xin Hao
2020-08-04 4:37 ` Viresh Kumar
2020-08-04 4:47 ` Xin Hao
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).