| Message ID | cover.1560944014.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | cpufreq: cleanups | expand |
On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 1:36 PM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote: > > CPUFREQ_CONST_LOOPS was introduced in a very old commit from pre-2.6 > kernel release commit 6a4a93f9c0d5 ("[CPUFREQ] Fix 'out of sync' > issue"). > > Probably the initial idea was to just avoid these checks for set_policy > type drivers and then things got changed over the years. And it is very > unclear why these checks are there at all. > > Replace the CPUFREQ_CONST_LOOPS check with has_target(), which makes > more sense now. > > Also remove () around freq comparison statement as they aren't required > and checkpatch also warns for them. > > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> > --- > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 13 +++++-------- > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > index 54befd775bd6..e59194c2c613 100644 > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > @@ -359,12 +359,10 @@ static void cpufreq_notify_transition(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, > * which is not equal to what the cpufreq core thinks is > * "old frequency". > */ > - if (!(cpufreq_driver->flags & CPUFREQ_CONST_LOOPS)) { > - if (policy->cur && (policy->cur != freqs->old)) { > - pr_debug("Warning: CPU frequency is %u, cpufreq assumed %u kHz\n", > - freqs->old, policy->cur); > - freqs->old = policy->cur; > - } > + if (has_target() && policy->cur && policy->cur != freqs->old) { > + pr_debug("Warning: CPU frequency is %u, cpufreq assumed %u kHz\n", > + freqs->old, policy->cur); > + freqs->old = policy->cur; Is cpufreq_notify_transition() ever called if ->setpolicy drivers are in use? > } > > srcu_notifier_call_chain(&cpufreq_transition_notifier_list, > @@ -1618,8 +1616,7 @@ static unsigned int __cpufreq_get(struct cpufreq_policy *policy) > if (policy->fast_switch_enabled) > return ret_freq; > > - if (ret_freq && policy->cur && > - !(cpufreq_driver->flags & CPUFREQ_CONST_LOOPS)) { > + if (has_target() && ret_freq && policy->cur) { > /* verify no discrepancy between actual and > saved value exists */ > if (unlikely(ret_freq != policy->cur)) { > -- > 2.21.0.rc0.269.g1a574e7a288b >
On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 1:36 PM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote: > > For code consistency, use has_target() instead of !setpolicy everywhere, > as it is already done at several places. That's OK > Maybe we should also use !has_target() for setpolicy case to use only one expression > for this differentiation. But I'm not sure what you mean here?
Hi Rafael, I accumulated these while reworking the freq-constraint series and it would be nice if these can get in before I send the next version of freq-constraint stuff. These are mostly cleanups and code consolidation for better management of code. Compile and boot tested only. Thanks. Viresh Kumar (6): cpufreq: Remove the redundant !setpolicy check cpufreq: Replace few CPUFREQ_CONST_LOOPS checks with has_target() cpufreq: Remove the has_target() check from notifier handler cpufreq: Use has_target() instead of !setpolicy cpufreq: Reuse cpufreq_update_current_freq() in __cpufreq_get() cpufreq: Avoid calling cpufreq_verify_current_freq() from handle_update() drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 115 +++++++++++++++++--------------------- 1 file changed, 52 insertions(+), 63 deletions(-) -- 2.21.0.rc0.269.g1a574e7a288b