On 04-12-18, 14:57, Taniya Das wrote:
> Hello Viresh,
>
> On 12/4/2018 10:42 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > Hi Taniya,
> >
> > Sorry that I haven't been reviewing it much from last few iterations as I was
> > letting others get this into a better shape. Thanks for your efforts..
> >
> > On 02-12-18, 09:25, Taniya Das wrote:
> > > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/qcom-cpufreq-hw.c
> >
> > > +struct cpufreq_qcom {
> > > + struct cpufreq_frequency_table *table;
> > > + void __iomem *perf_state_reg;
> > > + cpumask_t related_cpus;
> > > +};
> > > +
> > > +static struct cpufreq_qcom *qcom_freq_domain_map[NR_CPUS];
> >
> > Now that the code is much more simplified, I am not sure if you need this
> > per-cpu structure at all. The only place where you are using it is in
> > qcom_cpufreq_hw_cpu_init() and probe(). Why not merge qcom_cpu_resources_init()
> > completely into qcom_cpufreq_hw_cpu_init() and get rid of this structure
> > entirely ?
> >
>
> Yes, we still would require the per-cpu.
An explanation on why do you feel so would have been nice :)
I am sure I am missing something obvious here.
--
viresh
