| Message ID | 49250a2946ff12500a5474eb9384c125b3ede23c.1420181916.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
On 2 January 2015 at 12:34, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote: > In most of the cases cpufreq wouldn't be disabled and this adds unnecessary > delay for its users. In the case if cpufreq is really disabled, then the per-cpu > variable will also return NULL and things will continue working as is. Remove > this unnecessary check. > > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> > --- > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 6 ------ > 1 file changed, 6 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > index 14d637a28dd8..62c6a0b8b0d1 100644 > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > @@ -202,9 +202,6 @@ struct cpufreq_policy *cpufreq_cpu_get(unsigned int cpu) > struct cpufreq_policy *policy = NULL; > unsigned long flags; > > - if (cpufreq_disabled()) > - return NULL; > - > if (!down_read_trylock(&cpufreq_rwsem)) > return NULL; > > @@ -229,9 +226,6 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(cpufreq_cpu_get); > > void cpufreq_cpu_put(struct cpufreq_policy *policy) > { > - if (cpufreq_disabled()) > - return; > - > kobject_put(&policy->kobj); > up_read(&cpufreq_rwsem); > } @Rafael: Are you fine with this patch as is? I meant, you just left it for rebase conflict or because you want it to be part of the WARN() you suggested? The WARN here might not be a good idea as this can be called by users while cpufreq is disabled. But we don't need this check because of the reasons I mentioned in commit log. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pm" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 26 January 2015 at 06:09, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> wrote: > It depended on [15/17] that I didn't apply. That's all I wanted to know. >> The WARN here might not be a good idea as this can be called by >> users while cpufreq is disabled. But we don't need this check because >> of the reasons I mentioned in commit log. > > I'm not sure which commit log are you talking about, this one or the [15/17] one? This one. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pm" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c index 14d637a28dd8..62c6a0b8b0d1 100644 --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c @@ -202,9 +202,6 @@ struct cpufreq_policy *cpufreq_cpu_get(unsigned int cpu) struct cpufreq_policy *policy = NULL; unsigned long flags; - if (cpufreq_disabled()) - return NULL; - if (!down_read_trylock(&cpufreq_rwsem)) return NULL; @@ -229,9 +226,6 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(cpufreq_cpu_get); void cpufreq_cpu_put(struct cpufreq_policy *policy) { - if (cpufreq_disabled()) - return; - kobject_put(&policy->kobj); up_read(&cpufreq_rwsem); }
In most of the cases cpufreq wouldn't be disabled and this adds unnecessary delay for its users. In the case if cpufreq is really disabled, then the per-cpu variable will also return NULL and things will continue working as is. Remove this unnecessary check. Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> --- drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 6 ------ 1 file changed, 6 deletions(-)