From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
To: Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Subject: [PATCH 2/4] cpufreq: Reorder and simplify cpufreq_update_policy()
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2019 00:24:25 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <12123959.u3IqJzSc3J@aspire.rjw.lan> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <11668536.bBDtnvkYQE@aspire.rjw.lan>
From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
In cpufreq_update_policy(), instead of updating new_policy.cur
separately, which is kind of confusing, because cpufreq_set_policy()
doesn't take that value into account directly anyway, make the copy
of the existing policy after calling cpufreq_update_current_freq().
No intentional changes of behavior.
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
---
drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 19 +++++++------------
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
Index: linux-pm/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
===================================================================
--- linux-pm.orig/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
+++ linux-pm/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
@@ -2354,23 +2354,18 @@ void cpufreq_update_policy(unsigned int
if (policy_is_inactive(policy))
goto unlock;
- pr_debug("updating policy for CPU %u\n", cpu);
- memcpy(&new_policy, policy, sizeof(*policy));
- new_policy.min = policy->user_policy.min;
- new_policy.max = policy->user_policy.max;
-
/*
* BIOS might change freq behind our back
* -> ask driver for current freq and notify governors about a change
*/
- if (cpufreq_driver->get && !cpufreq_driver->setpolicy) {
- if (cpufreq_suspended)
- goto unlock;
+ if (cpufreq_driver->get && !cpufreq_driver->setpolicy &&
+ (cpufreq_suspended || WARN_ON(!cpufreq_update_current_freq(policy))))
+ goto unlock;
- new_policy.cur = cpufreq_update_current_freq(policy);
- if (WARN_ON(!new_policy.cur))
- goto unlock;
- }
+ pr_debug("updating policy for CPU %u\n", cpu);
+ memcpy(&new_policy, policy, sizeof(*policy));
+ new_policy.min = policy->user_policy.min;
+ new_policy.max = policy->user_policy.max;
cpufreq_set_policy(policy, &new_policy);
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-02-19 23:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-02-19 23:21 [PATCH 0/4] cpufreq: Assorted cleanups related to cpufreq_set_policy() Rafael J. Wysocki
2019-02-19 23:22 ` [PATCH 1/4] cpufreq: Add kerneldoc comments for two core functions Rafael J. Wysocki
2019-02-19 23:24 ` Rafael J. Wysocki [this message]
2019-02-19 23:25 ` [PATCH 3/4] cpufreq: Fix two debug messages in cpufreq_set_policy() Rafael J. Wysocki
2019-02-19 23:26 ` [PATCH 4/4] cpufreq: Pass updated policy to driver ->setpolicy() callback Rafael J. Wysocki
2019-02-20 5:05 ` [PATCH 0/4] cpufreq: Assorted cleanups related to cpufreq_set_policy() Viresh Kumar
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=12123959.u3IqJzSc3J@aspire.rjw.lan \
--to=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=viresh.kumar@linaro.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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).