On 21 March 2014 16:34, Gautham R Shenoy <e...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > Heh! Well, that wasn't the reason why this was sent out as a separate > patch, but never mind. Though I don't understand why it would be > difficult to review the patch though.
Because the initial driver wasn't complete earlier. There were 2-3 patches after the first one which are changing what the first patch has added. Nothing else :) >> > +static void powernv_read_cpu_freq(void *ret_freq) >> > +{ >> > + unsigned long pmspr_val; >> > + s8 local_pstate_id; >> > + int *cur_freq, freq, pstate_id; >> > + >> > + cur_freq = (int *)ret_freq; >> >> You don't need cur_freq variable at all.. > > I don't like it either. But the compiler complains without this hack > :-( Why would the compiler warn for doing this?: *(int *)ret_freq = freq; >> > + pmspr_val = get_pmspr(SPRN_PMSR); >> > + >> > + /* The local pstate id corresponds bits 48..55 in the PMSR. >> > + * Note: Watch out for the sign! */ >> > + local_pstate_id = (pmspr_val >> 48) & 0xFF; >> > + pstate_id = local_pstate_id; >> >> similarly local_pstate_id > > well, I am interested in the bits 48..55 of pmspr_val. That's the > pstate_id which can be negative. So I'll like to keep > local_pstate_id. Can you please explain at bit level how getting the value in a s8 first and then into a s32 will help you here? Instead of getting it directly into s32. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev