From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
Cc: Linux PM list <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] cpufreq: Drop cpufreq_policy_restore()
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 20:18:54 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150727144854.GD18535@linux> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1831805.k1h8RcvUky@vostro.rjw.lan>
On 27-07-15, 16:03, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
>
> Notice that when cpufreq_policy_restore() is called, its per-CPU
> cpufreq_cpu_data variable has been already dereferenced and if that
> variable is not NULL, the policy local pointer in cpufreq_add_dev()
> contains its value.
>
> Therefore it is not necessary to dereference it again and the
> policy pointer can be used directly. Moreover, if that pointer
> is not NULL, the policy is inactive (or the previous check would
> have made us return from cpufreq_add_dev()) so the restoration
> code from cpufreq_policy_restore() can be moved to that point
> in cpufreq_add_dev().
>
> Do that and drop cpufreq_policy_restore().
>
> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> ---
> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 44 +++++++++++---------------------------------
> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-)
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
--
viresh
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-07-27 14:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-07-23 0:00 [PATCH 0/2] cpufreq: Better separation of device addition/removal and online/offline paths Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-07-23 0:01 ` [PATCH 1/2] cpufreq: Rename two functions related to CPU offline Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-07-23 6:40 ` Viresh Kumar
2015-07-23 0:04 ` [PATCH 2/2] cpufreq: Separate CPU device removal from CPU online Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-07-23 6:39 ` Viresh Kumar
2015-07-23 20:56 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-07-24 2:19 ` Viresh Kumar
2015-07-24 19:54 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-07-27 14:01 ` [PATCH 0/7] cpufreq: Better separation of device addition/removal and online/offline paths Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-07-27 14:03 ` [PATCH 1/7] cpufreq: Rework two functions related to CPU offline Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-07-27 14:42 ` Viresh Kumar
2015-07-27 14:03 ` [PATCH 2/7] cpufreq: Drop cpufreq_policy_restore() Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-07-27 14:48 ` Viresh Kumar [this message]
2015-07-27 14:04 ` [PATCH 3/7] cpufreq: Drop unnecessary label from cpufreq_add_dev() Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-07-27 14:52 ` Viresh Kumar
2015-07-27 14:05 ` [PATCH 4/7] cpufreq: Drop unused dev argument from two functions Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-07-27 14:53 ` Viresh Kumar
2015-07-27 14:06 ` [PATCH 5/7] cpufreq: Do not update related_cpus on every policy activation Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-07-27 14:56 ` Viresh Kumar
2015-07-27 14:07 ` [PATCH 6/7] cpufreq: Pass CPU number to cpufreq_policy_alloc() Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-07-27 14:58 ` Viresh Kumar
2015-07-27 14:09 ` [PATCH 7/7] cpufreq: Separate CPU device removal from CPU online Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-07-27 15:06 ` Viresh Kumar
2015-07-27 20:56 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-07-27 21:56 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-07-28 2:06 ` Viresh Kumar
2015-07-28 14:22 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-07-27 21:55 ` [Update][PATCH 7/7] cpufreq: Separate CPU device registration " Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-07-28 2:20 ` Viresh Kumar
2015-07-28 14:13 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-07-29 1:03 ` [Update 2x][PATCH " Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-07-29 1:08 ` [PATCH] cpufreq: Replace recover_policy with new_policy in cpufreq_online() Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-07-29 5:38 ` Viresh Kumar
2015-07-29 5:32 ` [Update 2x][PATCH 7/7] cpufreq: Separate CPU device registration from CPU online Viresh Kumar
2015-07-29 14:02 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-07-29 14:07 ` Viresh Kumar
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=20150727144854.GD18535@linux \
--to=viresh.kumar@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@arm.linux.org.uk \
--cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
/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).