| Message ID | 56d8e01d8febb81917aded319249145fdc73daec.1560999838.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Commit | 5ddc6d4e30f4e8701af661601ca07abdfc237996 |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [V2,1/5] cpufreq: Remove the redundant !setpolicy check | expand |
On Thursday, June 20, 2019 5:05:48 AM CEST Viresh Kumar wrote: > For code consistency, use has_target() instead of !setpolicy everywhere, > as it is already done at several places. Maybe we should also use > "!has_target()" instead of "cpufreq_driver->setpolicy" where we need to > check if the driver supports setpolicy, so to use only one expression > for this kind of differentiation. > > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> > --- > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 6 +++--- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > index 41ac701e324f..5f5c7a516c74 100644 > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > @@ -632,7 +632,7 @@ static int cpufreq_parse_policy(char *str_governor, > } > > /** > - * cpufreq_parse_governor - parse a governor string only for !setpolicy > + * cpufreq_parse_governor - parse a governor string only for has_target() > */ > static int cpufreq_parse_governor(char *str_governor, > struct cpufreq_policy *policy) > @@ -1301,7 +1301,7 @@ static int cpufreq_online(unsigned int cpu) > policy->max = policy->user_policy.max; > } > > - if (cpufreq_driver->get && !cpufreq_driver->setpolicy) { > + if (cpufreq_driver->get && has_target()) { > policy->cur = cpufreq_driver->get(policy->cpu); > if (!policy->cur) { > pr_err("%s: ->get() failed\n", __func__); > @@ -2401,7 +2401,7 @@ void cpufreq_update_policy(unsigned int cpu) > * 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_driver->get && has_target() && > (cpufreq_suspended || WARN_ON(!cpufreq_update_current_freq(policy)))) > goto unlock; > > Applied, thanks!
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c index 41ac701e324f..5f5c7a516c74 100644 --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c @@ -632,7 +632,7 @@ static int cpufreq_parse_policy(char *str_governor, } /** - * cpufreq_parse_governor - parse a governor string only for !setpolicy + * cpufreq_parse_governor - parse a governor string only for has_target() */ static int cpufreq_parse_governor(char *str_governor, struct cpufreq_policy *policy) @@ -1301,7 +1301,7 @@ static int cpufreq_online(unsigned int cpu) policy->max = policy->user_policy.max; } - if (cpufreq_driver->get && !cpufreq_driver->setpolicy) { + if (cpufreq_driver->get && has_target()) { policy->cur = cpufreq_driver->get(policy->cpu); if (!policy->cur) { pr_err("%s: ->get() failed\n", __func__); @@ -2401,7 +2401,7 @@ void cpufreq_update_policy(unsigned int cpu) * 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_driver->get && has_target() && (cpufreq_suspended || WARN_ON(!cpufreq_update_current_freq(policy)))) goto unlock;
For code consistency, use has_target() instead of !setpolicy everywhere, as it is already done at several places. Maybe we should also use "!has_target()" instead of "cpufreq_driver->setpolicy" where we need to check if the driver supports setpolicy, so to use only one expression for this kind of differentiation. Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> --- drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) -- 2.21.0.rc0.269.g1a574e7a288b