On Monday 11 May 2020 at 12:19:00 (+0100), Lukasz Luba wrote:
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/scmi-cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/scmi-cpufreq.c
> index 61623e2ff149..11ee24e06d12 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/scmi-cpufreq.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/scmi-cpufreq.c
> @@ -103,17 +103,12 @@ scmi_get_sharing_cpus(struct device *cpu_dev, struct cpumask *cpumask)
> }
>
> static int __maybe_unused
> -scmi_get_cpu_power(unsigned long *power, unsigned long *KHz, int cpu)
> +scmi_get_cpu_power(unsigned long *power, unsigned long *KHz,
> + struct device *cpu_dev)
> {
> - struct device *cpu_dev = get_cpu_device(cpu);
> unsigned long Hz;
> int ret, domain;
>
> - if (!cpu_dev) {
> - pr_err("failed to get cpu%d device\n", cpu);
> - return -ENODEV;
> - }
> -
> domain = handle->perf_ops->device_domain_id(cpu_dev);
> if (domain < 0)
> return domain;
> @@ -200,7 +195,7 @@ static int scmi_cpufreq_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
>
> policy->fast_switch_possible = true;
>
> - em_register_perf_domain(policy->cpus, nr_opp, &em_cb);
So this one has no users after this patch right? I suppose you could
squash patch 05 in this one. But no big deal.
Acked-by: Quentin Perret <qperret@xxxxxxxxxx>
> + em_dev_register_perf_domain(cpu_dev, nr_opp, &em_cb, policy->cpus);
>
> return 0;
