Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] cpufreq: Extract cpufreq_policy_init_qos() function

[Pierre Gondois <pierre.gondois@arm.com>]

Hello Zhongqiu,

On 5/19/26 15:51, Zhongqiu Han wrote:
> On 5/11/2026 9:55 PM, Pierre Gondois wrote:
>> Extract the QoS related logic from cpufreq_policy_online()
>> to make the function shorter/simpler.
>>
>> The logic is placed in cpufreq_policy_init_qos() and is
>> now executed right after the following calls:
>> - cpufreq_driver->init()
>> - cpufreq_table_validate_and_sort()
>>
>> This helps preparing following patches that will,
>> in cpufreq_policy_init_qos():
>> - treat the policy->min/max values set by drivers as QoS requests.
>> - set a default policy->min/max value to all policies.
>>
>> No functional change.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Pierre Gondois <pierre.gondois@arm.com>
>
>
> Looks good to me apart from a minor nit inline.
>
> Reviewed-by: Zhongqiu Han <zhongqiu.han@oss.qualcomm.com>
>
>
>> ---
>>   drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 53 +++++++++++++++++++++++----------------
>>   1 file changed, 32 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
>> index 44eb1b7e7fc1b..034603c2af325 100644
>> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
>> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
>> @@ -1397,6 +1397,32 @@ static void cpufreq_policy_free(struct 
>> cpufreq_policy *policy)
>>       kfree(policy);
>>   }
>>   +static int cpufreq_policy_init_qos(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
>> +{
>> +    int ret;
>> +
>> +    if (policy->boost_supported) {
>> +        ret = freq_qos_add_request(&policy->constraints,
>> +                        &policy->boost_freq_req,
>> +                        FREQ_QOS_MAX,
>> +                        policy->cpuinfo.max_freq);
>> +        if (ret < 0)
>> +            return ret;
>> +    }
>> +
>> +    ret = freq_qos_add_request(&policy->constraints, 
>> &policy->min_freq_req,
>> +                   FREQ_QOS_MIN, FREQ_QOS_MIN_DEFAULT_VALUE);
>> +    if (ret < 0)
>> +        return ret;
>> +
>> +    ret = freq_qos_add_request(&policy->constraints, 
>> &policy->max_freq_req,
>> +                   FREQ_QOS_MAX, FREQ_QOS_MAX_DEFAULT_VALUE);
>> +    if (ret < 0)
>> +        return ret;
>> +
>> +    return ret;
>
>
>
> Just minor nit: cpufreq_policy_init_qos() could perhaps return 0 on
> success.
>
> In the original inline code we only checked 'ret < 0', so positive
> return values were not intended to propagate as part of the API
> contract. Returning 'ret' here may expose a positive success code (e.g.
> 1) and make the helper easier to misuse (e.g. 'if (ret)' checks).
> Returning 0 would keep the semantics unambiguous.


Yes right indeed, I ll do that.