On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 8:07 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki [off-list ref] wrote:

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 5:29 AM, Viresh Kumar [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

acpi_processor_ppc_notifier() can live without using CPUFREQ_START
(which is gonna be removed soon), as it is only used while setting
ignore_ppc to 0. This can be done with the help of "ignore_ppc < 0"
check alone. The notifier function anyway ignores all events except
CPUFREQ_ADJUST and dropping CPUFREQ_START wouldn't harm at all.

Once CPUFREQ_START event is removed from the cpufreq core,
acpi_processor_ppc_notifier() will get called only for CPUFREQ_NOTIFY or
CPUFREQ_ADJUST event. Drop the return statement from the first if block
to make sure we don't ignore any such events.

Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>

---
V1->V2:
- Improved changelog
- Don't move the first if block to a later point, as it becomes useless
  then.
---
 drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c | 4 +---
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c b/drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c
index f0b4a981b8d3..18b72eec3507 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c

@@ -75,10 +75,8 @@ static int acpi_processor_ppc_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb,
        struct acpi_processor *pr;
        unsigned int ppc = 0;

-       if (event == CPUFREQ_START && ignore_ppc <= 0) {
+       if (ignore_ppc < 0)
                ignore_ppc = 0;
-               return 0;
-       }

Don't we want to return from here if ignore_ppc is 0?

I actually wanted to say "was negative" here, not sure why I said the
above in the end.

Anyway, the patch looks correct now.

Thanks,
Rafael