From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.2 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A838C4361B for ; Thu, 17 Dec 2020 10:56:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC4192389E for ; Thu, 17 Dec 2020 10:56:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728098AbgLQK4K (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Dec 2020 05:56:10 -0500 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:60718 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726155AbgLQK4J (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Dec 2020 05:56:09 -0500 Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2020 10:55:25 +0000 From: Catalin Marinas To: Viresh Kumar Cc: Ionela Voinescu , Will Deacon , Vincent Guittot , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 1/3] arm64: topology: Avoid the have_policy check Message-ID: <20201217105524.GA15336@gaia> References: <5ffc7b9ed03c6301ac2f710f609282959491b526.1608010334.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org> <20201217075732.blac5pbca7prmuum@vireshk-i7> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20201217075732.blac5pbca7prmuum@vireshk-i7> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Viresh, On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 01:27:32PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 15-12-20, 11:04, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > Every time I have stumbled upon this routine, I get confused with the > > way 'have_policy' is used and I have to dig in to understand why is it > > so. Here is an attempt to make it easier to understand, and hopefully it > > is an improvement. > > > > The 'have_policy' check was just an optimization to avoid writing > > to amu_fie_cpus in case we don't have to, but that optimization itself > > is creating more confusion than the real work. Lets just do that if all > > the CPUs support AMUs. It is much cleaner that way. > > > > Reviewed-by: Ionela Voinescu > > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar > > --- > > V3: > > - Added Reviewed by tag. > > Catalin, please pick the first two patches for 5.11. I will send the > last one separately later on. I haven't figured out whether these are fixes (a cover letter would help ;)). They look like generic improvements to me and given that we are already in the 5.11 merging window, they would probably need to wait until 5.12. -- Catalin