On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 5:29 AM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> acpi_processor_ppc_notifier() can live without using CPUFREQ_START
> (which is gonna be removed soon), as it is only used while setting
> ignore_ppc to 0. This can be done with the help of "ignore_ppc < 0"
> check alone. The notifier function anyway ignores all events except
> CPUFREQ_ADJUST and dropping CPUFREQ_START wouldn't harm at all.
>
> Once CPUFREQ_START event is removed from the cpufreq core,
> acpi_processor_ppc_notifier() will get called only for CPUFREQ_NOTIFY or
> CPUFREQ_ADJUST event. Drop the return statement from the first if block
> to make sure we don't ignore any such events.
>
> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> ---
> V1->V2:
> - Improved changelog
> - Don't move the first if block to a later point, as it becomes useless
> then.
> ---
> drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c | 4 +---
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c b/drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c
> index f0b4a981b8d3..18b72eec3507 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c
> @@ -75,10 +75,8 @@ static int acpi_processor_ppc_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb,
> struct acpi_processor *pr;
> unsigned int ppc = 0;
>
> - if (event == CPUFREQ_START && ignore_ppc <= 0) {
> + if (ignore_ppc < 0)
> ignore_ppc = 0;
> - return 0;
> - }
Don't we want to return from here if ignore_ppc is 0?
>
> if (ignore_ppc)
> return 0;
> --
Thanks,
Rafael
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
