Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Mon, 18 May 2020 13:11:42 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
To:     Serge Semin <Sergey.Semin@baikalelectronics.ru>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
        Serge Semin <fancer.lancer@gmail.com>,
        Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@alpha.franken.de>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
        Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>,
        Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@chromium.org>,
        Alexey Malahov <Alexey.Malahov@baikalelectronics.ru>,
        Paul Burton <paulburton@kernel.org>,
        Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>, linux-mips@vger.kernel.org,
        devicetree@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org,
        Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Yue Hu <huyue2@yulong.com>,
        linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 20/20] cpufreq: Return zero on success in boost sw
 setting
Message-ID: <20200518074142.c6kbofpdlxro2pjz@vireshk-i7>
References: <20200306124807.3596F80307C2@mail.baikalelectronics.ru>
 <20200506174238.15385-1-Sergey.Semin@baikalelectronics.ru>
 <20200506174238.15385-21-Sergey.Semin@baikalelectronics.ru>
 <c5109483-4c14-1a0c-efa9-51edf01c12de@intel.com>
 <20200516125203.et5gkv6ullkerjyd@mobilestation>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200516125203.et5gkv6ullkerjyd@mobilestation>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716-391-311a52
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 16-05-20, 15:52, Serge Semin wrote:
> On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 05:58:47PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > @@ -2554,7 +2554,7 @@ static int cpufreq_boost_set_sw(int state)
> > >   			break;
> > >   	}
> > > -	return ret;
> > > +	return ret < 0 ? ret : 0;
> > >   }
> > >   int cpufreq_boost_trigger_state(int state)
> > 
> > IMO it is better to update the caller of this function to handle the
> > positive value possibly returned by it correctly.
> 
> Could you elaborate why? Viresh seems to be ok with this solution.

And it is absolutely fine for Rafael to not agree with it :)

> As I see it the caller doesn't expect the positive value returned by the
> original freq_qos_update_request(). It just doesn't need to know whether the
> effective policy has been updated or not, it only needs to make sure the
> operations has been successful. Moreover the positive value is related only
> to the !last! active policy, which doesn't give the caller a full picture
> of the policy change anyway. So taking all of these into account I'd leave the
> fix as is.

Rafael: This function is called via a function pointer, which can call
this or a platform dependent routine (like in acpi-cpufreq.c), and it
would be reasonable IMO for the return of that callback to only look
for 0 or negative values, as is generally done in the kernel. And so
this solution looked okay to me as the positive return is coming from
the implementation detail here.

-- 
viresh