From: Rafael J. Wysocki <[email protected]> intel_pstate_hwp_set_policy() is a wrapper around intel_pstate_hwp_set(), but the only value it adds is to check hwp_active before calling the latter and one of its two callers has already checked hwp_active before that happens, so in that code path the additional check is redundant and using the wrapper is rather pointless.
For this reason, drop intel_pstate_hwp_set_policy() and make its callers invoke intel_pstate_hwp_set() directly (after checking hwp_active). Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <[email protected]> --- drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c | 18 ++++-------------- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) Index: linux-pm/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c =================================================================== --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c +++ linux-pm/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c @@ -935,14 +935,6 @@ skip_epp: } } -static int intel_pstate_hwp_set_policy(struct cpufreq_policy *policy) -{ - if (hwp_active) - intel_pstate_hwp_set(policy); - - return 0; -} - static int intel_pstate_hwp_save_state(struct cpufreq_policy *policy) { struct cpudata *cpu_data = all_cpu_data[policy->cpu]; @@ -957,20 +949,17 @@ static int intel_pstate_hwp_save_state(s static int intel_pstate_resume(struct cpufreq_policy *policy) { - int ret; - if (!hwp_active) return 0; mutex_lock(&intel_pstate_limits_lock); all_cpu_data[policy->cpu]->epp_policy = 0; - - ret = intel_pstate_hwp_set_policy(policy); + intel_pstate_hwp_set(policy); mutex_unlock(&intel_pstate_limits_lock); - return ret; + return 0; } static void intel_pstate_update_policies(void) @@ -2174,7 +2163,8 @@ static int intel_pstate_set_policy(struc intel_pstate_set_update_util_hook(policy->cpu); - intel_pstate_hwp_set_policy(policy); + if (hwp_active) + intel_pstate_hwp_set(policy); mutex_unlock(&intel_pstate_limits_lock);
