* [PATCH 1/2] ACPI: processor_perflib: Simplify code and stop using CPUFREQ_START @ 2017-01-05 6:04 Viresh Kumar 2017-01-05 6:04 ` [PATCH 2/2] cpufreq: Remove CPUFREQ_START notifier event Viresh Kumar 2017-01-28 11:32 ` [PATCH 1/2] ACPI: processor_perflib: Simplify code and stop using CPUFREQ_START Rafael J. Wysocki 0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Viresh Kumar @ 2017-01-05 6:04 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Rafael Wysocki, Len Brown Cc: linaro-kernel, linux-pm, linux-kernel, Vincent Guittot, Viresh Kumar, linux-acpi acpi_processor_ppc_notifier() can live without using CPUFREQ_START (which is gonna be removed soon). Simplify it a bit. Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> --- Rebased over: https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=148359167516831&w=2 drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c | 8 +++----- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c b/drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c index f0b4a981b8d3..1ceea1143a1c 100644 --- a/drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c +++ b/drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c @@ -75,14 +75,12 @@ 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) { - ignore_ppc = 0; - return 0; - } - if (ignore_ppc) return 0; + if (ignore_ppc < 0) + ignore_ppc = 0; + if (event != CPUFREQ_ADJUST) return 0; -- 2.7.1.410.g6faf27b ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 2/2] cpufreq: Remove CPUFREQ_START notifier event 2017-01-05 6:04 [PATCH 1/2] ACPI: processor_perflib: Simplify code and stop using CPUFREQ_START Viresh Kumar @ 2017-01-05 6:04 ` Viresh Kumar 2017-01-28 11:32 ` [PATCH 1/2] ACPI: processor_perflib: Simplify code and stop using CPUFREQ_START Rafael J. Wysocki 1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Viresh Kumar @ 2017-01-05 6:04 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Rafael Wysocki, Viresh Kumar Cc: linaro-kernel, linux-pm, linux-kernel, Vincent Guittot Its not used anymore, remove it. Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> --- drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 3 --- drivers/cpufreq/ppc_cbe_cpufreq_pmi.c | 3 --- include/linux/cpufreq.h | 1 - 3 files changed, 7 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c index 53268bebdf1e..408479540566 100644 --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c @@ -1246,9 +1246,6 @@ static int cpufreq_online(unsigned int cpu) write_unlock_irqrestore(&cpufreq_driver_lock, flags); } - blocking_notifier_call_chain(&cpufreq_policy_notifier_list, - CPUFREQ_START, policy); - ret = cpufreq_init_policy(policy); if (ret) { pr_err("%s: Failed to initialize policy for cpu: %d (%d)\n", diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/ppc_cbe_cpufreq_pmi.c b/drivers/cpufreq/ppc_cbe_cpufreq_pmi.c index dc112481a408..eeaa92251512 100644 --- a/drivers/cpufreq/ppc_cbe_cpufreq_pmi.c +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/ppc_cbe_cpufreq_pmi.c @@ -100,9 +100,6 @@ static int pmi_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, /* Should this really be called for CPUFREQ_ADJUST and CPUFREQ_NOTIFY * policy events?) */ - if (event == CPUFREQ_START) - return 0; - node = cbe_cpu_to_node(policy->cpu); pr_debug("got notified, event=%lu, node=%u\n", event, node); diff --git a/include/linux/cpufreq.h b/include/linux/cpufreq.h index 0183986b3ba6..61009c0b82c8 100644 --- a/include/linux/cpufreq.h +++ b/include/linux/cpufreq.h @@ -415,7 +415,6 @@ static inline void cpufreq_resume(void) {} /* Policy Notifiers */ #define CPUFREQ_ADJUST (0) #define CPUFREQ_NOTIFY (1) -#define CPUFREQ_START (2) #ifdef CONFIG_CPU_FREQ int cpufreq_register_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned int list); -- 2.7.1.410.g6faf27b ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/2] ACPI: processor_perflib: Simplify code and stop using CPUFREQ_START 2017-01-05 6:04 [PATCH 1/2] ACPI: processor_perflib: Simplify code and stop using CPUFREQ_START Viresh Kumar 2017-01-05 6:04 ` [PATCH 2/2] cpufreq: Remove CPUFREQ_START notifier event Viresh Kumar @ 2017-01-28 11:32 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2017-01-30 4:29 ` [PATCH V2 " Viresh Kumar 1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Rafael J. Wysocki @ 2017-01-28 11:32 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Viresh Kumar Cc: Len Brown, linaro-kernel, linux-pm, linux-kernel, Vincent Guittot, linux-acpi On Thursday, January 05, 2017 11:34:30 AM Viresh Kumar wrote: > acpi_processor_ppc_notifier() can live without using CPUFREQ_START > (which is gonna be removed soon). That should be "acpi_processor_ppc_notifier() can live without using CPUFREQ_START ..., because X". X is obviously missing. > Simplify it a bit. > > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> > --- > Rebased over: https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=148359167516831&w=2 > > drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c | 8 +++----- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c b/drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c > index f0b4a981b8d3..1ceea1143a1c 100644 > --- a/drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c > +++ b/drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c > @@ -75,14 +75,12 @@ 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) { > - ignore_ppc = 0; > - return 0; > - } > - > if (ignore_ppc) > return 0; > > + if (ignore_ppc < 0) > + ignore_ppc = 0; > + And the above looks like dead code to me (we have returned already if ignore_ppc is negative), so in particular ignore_ppc is never going to become 0 when it was negative initially. > if (event != CPUFREQ_ADJUST) > return 0; > > Thanks, Rafael ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [PATCH V2 1/2] ACPI: processor_perflib: Simplify code and stop using CPUFREQ_START 2017-01-28 11:32 ` [PATCH 1/2] ACPI: processor_perflib: Simplify code and stop using CPUFREQ_START Rafael J. Wysocki @ 2017-01-30 4:29 ` Viresh Kumar 2017-01-30 7:07 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Viresh Kumar @ 2017-01-30 4:29 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Rafael Wysocki, Len Brown Cc: linaro-kernel, linux-pm, linux-kernel, Vincent Guittot, Viresh Kumar, linux-acpi 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 <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> --- 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; - } if (ignore_ppc) return 0; -- 2.7.1.410.g6faf27b ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH V2 1/2] ACPI: processor_perflib: Simplify code and stop using CPUFREQ_START 2017-01-30 4:29 ` [PATCH V2 " Viresh Kumar @ 2017-01-30 7:07 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2017-01-30 7:49 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Rafael J. Wysocki @ 2017-01-30 7:07 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Viresh Kumar Cc: Rafael Wysocki, Len Brown, Lists linaro-kernel, Linux PM, Linux Kernel Mailing List, Vincent Guittot, ACPI Devel Maling List On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 5:29 AM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> 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 <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> > > --- > 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? > > if (ignore_ppc) > return 0; > -- Thanks, Rafael ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH V2 1/2] ACPI: processor_perflib: Simplify code and stop using CPUFREQ_START 2017-01-30 7:07 ` Rafael J. Wysocki @ 2017-01-30 7:49 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Rafael J. Wysocki @ 2017-01-30 7:49 UTC (permalink / raw) 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 On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 8:07 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@kernel.org> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 5:29 AM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> 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 <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> >> >> --- >> 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2017-01-30 7:50 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2017-01-05 6:04 [PATCH 1/2] ACPI: processor_perflib: Simplify code and stop using CPUFREQ_START Viresh Kumar 2017-01-05 6:04 ` [PATCH 2/2] cpufreq: Remove CPUFREQ_START notifier event Viresh Kumar 2017-01-28 11:32 ` [PATCH 1/2] ACPI: processor_perflib: Simplify code and stop using CPUFREQ_START Rafael J. Wysocki 2017-01-30 4:29 ` [PATCH V2 " Viresh Kumar 2017-01-30 7:07 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2017-01-30 7:49 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
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).