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=-7.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=unavailable 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 174B2C433E0 for ; Wed, 1 Jul 2020 12:16:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E97C920780 for ; Wed, 1 Jul 2020 12:16:55 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1593605816; bh=bsis1mBBkZdDOGXkGlZUQswMrh8525rzfKVNR1qywJY=; h=References:In-Reply-To:From:Date:Subject:To:Cc:List-ID:From; b=2MXc4G5l1GUcBFtsxKcdoouKlXhAHGnBxWd5meoK73kJhhgRAEVy/wDQak1EICbV0 Wlx+dOj19wy+4Wx8bwB2JWVYEID4twHa8FGBpvpL5CWNUwQ38p9fCUskhpD7hs8REx wepY1IZCP5Y8cNZ5d58+sPgmBDFozNzsFB3K5xqI= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1730515AbgGAMQp (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Jul 2020 08:16:45 -0400 Received: from mail-oi1-f196.google.com ([209.85.167.196]:36252 "EHLO mail-oi1-f196.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1730503AbgGAMQn (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Jul 2020 08:16:43 -0400 Received: by mail-oi1-f196.google.com with SMTP id h17so20417454oie.3; Wed, 01 Jul 2020 05:16:43 -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=w+LLXM4KPjeviTd5XtfNEKoIrALguf5kvnK4UkyGpcs=; b=qwD3m6CJQdUEnwzgo1iD0jW//YNcR7k8o/CfzRTZ6lPO3zpV67/CT+Cx9GY5NFDXms FARslZFp16GpssSowEAxl5JRYrRATkEEo+MxkZojhwxNCi0TThG0qG0hvBM7lsncP8dA NNQ9IDck+OakDxIIPjdqgCkvySNTROW109sUmwgYhqQV/WaQTwwjvG1RT3vvdEO1O1hd hgqCn2iZ3JpW+viE/zDYQYIZJmEYqLGZeq4pw2aziFnf0yHZDQGy3u9QzdvyIG2P1LaW gZ1A3eLNl+2117kuOCfuzwaI5Dmg4WCVnDjC98ofGKtxP7iYI6s6cwLTvQte3aSkW0+U LW+A== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533lORPswViq2V2BYWTKe6GbNN+Ve0ujMy6I4zT0IlJSLN1uvxBg pPLPedrbEdyT/UubSn4I5uQX0Q8pX5DtC9wASnk= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxfK1QzCckGAcRzG9ecCejOkFhWuBlSjsQ1HLhnJBkm7BrR3F15SSxW88Iu0/deoTngBDpAiGj4ujZO75q5pBE= X-Received: by 2002:aca:4a89:: with SMTP id x131mr20755870oia.103.1593605802721; Wed, 01 Jul 2020 05:16:42 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200701042007.13333-1-xhao@linux.alibaba.com> <20200701045227.epojzjwuky5kkdzj@vireshk-i7> In-Reply-To: <20200701045227.epojzjwuky5kkdzj@vireshk-i7> From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2020 14:16:31 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] cpufreq: CPPC: simply the code access 'highest_perf' value in cppc_perf_caps struct To: Viresh Kumar Cc: Xin Hao , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Linux PM , Linux Kernel Mailing List Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 6:52 AM Viresh Kumar 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 > > --- > > 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?