linux-acpi.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
To: Huisong Li <lihuisong@huawei.com>
Cc: rafael@kernel.org, lenb@kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org,
	 linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Sudeep.Holla@arm.com,
	linuxarm@huawei.com,  jonathan.cameron@huawei.com,
	zhanjie9@hisilicon.com, zhenglifeng1@huawei.com,
	 yubowen8@huawei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ACPI: processor: idle: Remove useless codes about the verification of cstate count
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2025 18:49:35 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0gs4xVKv65NW8A7XPgAqwoM6B-izAFrkySjmgeoNqDirg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20251105093647.3557248-1-lihuisong@huawei.com>

On Wed, Nov 5, 2025 at 10:36 AM Huisong Li <lihuisong@huawei.com> wrote:
>
> The acpi_processor_setup_cstates and acpi_processor_setup_cpuidle_cx will
> be called after successfully obtaining the power information. These setup
> functions have their own main role, but also verify the validity of cstate
> count.
>
> Actually, the acpi_processor_get_power_info_cst will return failure if the
> cstate count is zero and acpi_processor_get_power_info will return failure.
>
> So the verification of cstate count in these functions are useless.
>
> No intentional functional impact.
>
> Signed-off-by: Huisong Li <lihuisong@huawei.com>
> ---
>  drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c | 22 +++++++---------------
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c b/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c
> index 341825e8ac63..22909fccf0b1 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c
> @@ -732,8 +732,8 @@ static int __cpuidle acpi_idle_enter_s2idle(struct cpuidle_device *dev,
>         return 0;
>  }
>
> -static int acpi_processor_setup_cpuidle_cx(struct acpi_processor *pr,
> -                                          struct cpuidle_device *dev)
> +static void acpi_processor_setup_cpuidle_cx(struct acpi_processor *pr,
> +                                           struct cpuidle_device *dev)
>  {
>         int i, count = ACPI_IDLE_STATE_START;
>         struct acpi_processor_cx *cx;
> @@ -753,14 +753,9 @@ static int acpi_processor_setup_cpuidle_cx(struct acpi_processor *pr,
>                 if (count == CPUIDLE_STATE_MAX)
>                         break;
>         }
> -
> -       if (!count)
> -               return -EINVAL;
> -
> -       return 0;
>  }
>
> -static int acpi_processor_setup_cstates(struct acpi_processor *pr)
> +static void acpi_processor_setup_cstates(struct acpi_processor *pr)
>  {
>         int i, count;
>         struct acpi_processor_cx *cx;
> @@ -822,11 +817,6 @@ static int acpi_processor_setup_cstates(struct acpi_processor *pr)
>         }
>
>         drv->state_count = count;
> -
> -       if (!count)
> -               return -EINVAL;
> -
> -       return 0;
>  }
>
>  static inline void acpi_processor_cstate_first_run_checks(void)
> @@ -1241,7 +1231,8 @@ static int acpi_processor_setup_cpuidle_states(struct acpi_processor *pr)
>         if (pr->flags.has_lpi)
>                 return acpi_processor_setup_lpi_states(pr);
>
> -       return acpi_processor_setup_cstates(pr);
> +       acpi_processor_setup_cstates(pr);
> +       return 0;
>  }
>
>  /**
> @@ -1261,7 +1252,8 @@ static int acpi_processor_setup_cpuidle_dev(struct acpi_processor *pr,
>         if (pr->flags.has_lpi)
>                 return acpi_processor_ffh_lpi_probe(pr->id);
>
> -       return acpi_processor_setup_cpuidle_cx(pr, dev);
> +       acpi_processor_setup_cpuidle_cx(pr, dev);
> +       return 0;
>  }
>
>  static int acpi_processor_get_power_info(struct acpi_processor *pr)
> --

Applied as 6.19 material with rewritten subject and changelog, thanks!

      reply	other threads:[~2025-11-07 17:49 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-11-05  9:36 [PATCH] ACPI: processor: idle: Remove useless codes about the verification of cstate count Huisong Li
2025-11-07 17:49 ` Rafael J. Wysocki [this message]

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=CAJZ5v0gs4xVKv65NW8A7XPgAqwoM6B-izAFrkySjmgeoNqDirg@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=rafael@kernel.org \
    --cc=Sudeep.Holla@arm.com \
    --cc=jonathan.cameron@huawei.com \
    --cc=lenb@kernel.org \
    --cc=lihuisong@huawei.com \
    --cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linuxarm@huawei.com \
    --cc=yubowen8@huawei.com \
    --cc=zhanjie9@hisilicon.com \
    --cc=zhenglifeng1@huawei.com \
    /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).