Hi Quentin,
On 5/11/20 12:57 PM, Quentin Perret wrote:
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.
Yes, it was tricky to me to decide the splits suggested by Daniel and
this is the example. I had to introduce the em_dev_register_perf_domain
and make clients of it before I remove the old em_register_perf_domain
completely. I agree it could also go with the patch 5, but it does not
harm to be here.
Acked-by: Quentin Perret <qperret@xxxxxxxxxx>
Thank you for this ACKs and the earlier.
Regards,
Lukasz
+ em_dev_register_perf_domain(cpu_dev, nr_opp, &em_cb, policy->cpus);
return 0;
