On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 8:07 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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?
I actually wanted to say "was negative" here, not sure why I said the
above in the end.
Anyway, the patch looks correct now.
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
