On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 5:06 PM, Viresh Kumar <[email protected]> wrote: > On 27-07-15, 16:09, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <[email protected]> >> >> To separate the CPU online interface from the CPU device removal >> one, > > Why do you call this cpu device removal code?
By mistake. Of course, that should be addition/registration. >> split cpufreq_online() out of cpufreq_add_dev() and make >> cpufreq_cpu_callback() call the former, while the latter will only >> be used as the CPU device removal subsystem interface callback. >> >> While at it, notice that the return value of sif->add_dev() is >> ignored in bus_probe_device(), so (the new) cpufreq_add_dev() >> doesn't need to bother with returning anything different from 0 >> and cpufreq_online() may be a void function. > > That is going to change in 4.3: > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/6/26/132 There are some problems with access to klml.org today and I'm not sure what you mean. Can you explain your points in addition to sending links to stuff, please? >> Moreover, since the return value of cpufreq_add_policy_cpu() is >> going to be ignored now too, make a void function of it as well. >> >> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <[email protected]> >> Suggested-by: Russell King <[email protected]> >> --- >> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 125 >> ++++++++++++++++++++++------------------------ >> 1 file changed, 61 insertions(+), 64 deletions(-) >> >> Index: linux-pm/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c >> =================================================================== >> --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c >> +++ linux-pm/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c >> @@ -1056,19 +1056,17 @@ static int cpufreq_init_policy(struct cp >> return cpufreq_set_policy(policy, &new_policy); >> } >> >> -static int cpufreq_add_policy_cpu(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, unsigned >> int cpu) >> +static void cpufreq_add_policy_cpu(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, unsigned >> int cpu) >> { >> - int ret = 0; >> - >> /* Has this CPU been taken care of already? */ >> if (cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, policy->cpus)) >> - return 0; >> + return; >> >> if (has_target()) { >> - ret = __cpufreq_governor(policy, CPUFREQ_GOV_STOP); >> + int ret = __cpufreq_governor(policy, CPUFREQ_GOV_STOP); > > Why should we move the definition of ret here and ... We don't have to, but then we don't need the variable outside of the blocks it is used in. >> if (ret) { >> pr_err("%s: Failed to stop governor\n", __func__); >> - return ret; >> + return; >> } >> } > I'll send a new version of this patch. Thanks, Rafael -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
