On 01-07-20, 14:16, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 6:52 AM Viresh Kumar <viresh.ku...@linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> > On 01-07-20, 12:20, Xin Hao wrote:
> > > The 'caps' variable has been defined, so there is no need to get
> > > 'highest_perf' value through 'cpu->caps.highest_perf', you can use
> > > 'caps->highest_perf' instead.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Xin Hao <x...@linux.alibaba.com>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c | 4 ++--
> > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c
> > > b/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c
> > > index 257d726a4456..051d0e56c67a 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c
> > > @@ -161,7 +161,7 @@ static unsigned int cppc_cpufreq_perf_to_khz(struct
> > > cppc_cpudata *cpu,
> > > if (!max_khz)
> > > max_khz = cppc_get_dmi_max_khz();
> > > mul = max_khz;
> > > - div = cpu->perf_caps.highest_perf;
> > > + div = caps->highest_perf;
> > > }
> > > return (u64)perf * mul / div;
> > > }
> > > @@ -184,7 +184,7 @@ static unsigned int cppc_cpufreq_khz_to_perf(struct
> > > cppc_cpudata *cpu,
> > > } else {
> > > if (!max_khz)
> > > max_khz = cppc_get_dmi_max_khz();
> > > - mul = cpu->perf_caps.highest_perf;
> > > + mul = caps->highest_perf;
> > > div = max_khz;
> > > }
> >
> > Applied. Thanks.
>
> I applied the previous cppc_cpufreq patch, hopefully it will not clash
> with this one.
>
> Are you going to take care of this driver going forward?
I started picking up the patches for this driver as it was mostly ARM
stuff and FWIW, I picked the previous one as well and because it was
sent by me, I never replied with the "Applied" message :)
Will it be possible for you to drop that one? Or should I drop that
now ? There shouldn't be any conflicts for now though.
--
viresh
