From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Viresh Kumar Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 10/10] cpufreq: governor: Drop cpu argument from dbs_check_cpu() Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2016 14:45:10 +0530 Message-ID: <20160205091510.GM21792@vireshk> References: <3705929.bslqXH980s@vostro.rjw.lan> <9008098.QDD8C89zDx@vostro.rjw.lan> <2367498.ClbHvSsNAg@vostro.rjw.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mail-pa0-f50.google.com ([209.85.220.50]:34199 "EHLO mail-pa0-f50.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752228AbcBEJPO (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Feb 2016 04:15:14 -0500 Received: by mail-pa0-f50.google.com with SMTP id uo6so31775093pac.1 for ; Fri, 05 Feb 2016 01:15:13 -0800 (PST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2367498.ClbHvSsNAg@vostro.rjw.lan> Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Linux PM list , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Srinivas Pandruvada , Juri Lelli , Steve Muckle , Saravana Kannan On 05-02-16, 03:21, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > From: Rafael J. Wysocki > > Since policy->cpu is always passed as the second argument to > dbs_check_cpu(), it is not really necessary to pass it, because > the function can obtain that value via its first argument just fine. > > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki > --- > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c | 2 +- > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c | 5 +++-- > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.h | 2 +- > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_ondemand.c | 6 ++---- > 4 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) Acked-by: Viresh Kumar -- viresh