From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: rjw@sisk.pl (Rafael J. Wysocki)
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2012 00:11:29 +0200
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] cpufreq: return early from __cpufreq_driver_getavg()
In-Reply-To: <32e5bed743cc6cc4e614291a7080299f5f0d0933.1350677395.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
References: <32e5bed743cc6cc4e614291a7080299f5f0d0933.1350677395.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Message-ID: <2737823.2JYE7UmLRN@vostro.rjw.lan>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Saturday 20 of October 2012 01:42:05 Viresh Kumar wrote:
> There is no need to do cpufreq_get_cpu() and cpufreq_put_cpu() for drivers that
> don't support getavg() routine.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>

The patch doesn't seem to follow the changelog or the other way around.

Thanks,
Rafael


> ---
>  drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 6 ++++--
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> index 85df538..f552d5f 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> @@ -1511,12 +1511,14 @@ int __cpufreq_driver_getavg(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, unsigned int cpu)
>  {
>  	int ret = 0;
>  
> +	if (!(cpu_online(cpu) && cpufreq_driver->getavg))
> +		return 0;
> +
>  	policy = cpufreq_cpu_get(policy->cpu);
>  	if (!policy)
>  		return -EINVAL;
>  
> -	if (cpu_online(cpu) && cpufreq_driver->getavg)
> -		ret = cpufreq_driver->getavg(policy, cpu);
> +	ret = cpufreq_driver->getavg(policy, cpu);
>  
>  	cpufreq_cpu_put(policy);
>  	return ret;
> 
-- 
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.