Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Mon, 10 Oct 2022 11:06:14 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
To:     Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rafael@kernel.org,
        linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, Dietmar.Eggemann@arm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] cpufreq: Change macro for store scaling min/max
 frequency
Message-ID: <20221010053614.zu2f3btjlh7woxbj@vireshk-i7>
References: <20220930094821.31665-1-lukasz.luba@arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220930094821.31665-1-lukasz.luba@arm.com>
Precedence: bulk

On 30-09-22, 10:48, Lukasz Luba wrote:
> In order to prepare extension to the store_scaling_max_freq() remove
> the macro and use two normal functions. The set value for max frequency
> is important for the task scheduler.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com>
> ---
>  drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 47 ++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
>  1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> index 69b3d61852ac..1f8b93f42c76 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> @@ -715,26 +715,33 @@ static ssize_t show_scaling_cur_freq(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, char *buf)
>  	return ret;
>  }
>  
> -/*
> - * cpufreq_per_cpu_attr_write() / store_##file_name() - sysfs write access
> - */
> -#define store_one(file_name, object)			\
> -static ssize_t store_##file_name					\
> -(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, const char *buf, size_t count)		\
> -{									\
> -	unsigned long val;						\
> -	int ret;							\
> -									\
> -	ret = sscanf(buf, "%lu", &val);					\
> -	if (ret != 1)							\
> -		return -EINVAL;						\
> -									\
> -	ret = freq_qos_update_request(policy->object##_freq_req, val);\
> -	return ret >= 0 ? count : ret;					\
> -}
> -
> -store_one(scaling_min_freq, min);
> -store_one(scaling_max_freq, max);
> +static ssize_t store_scaling_max_freq
> +(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, const char *buf, size_t count)

I thought we can't break right after function's name according to
kernel's coding guidelines. Did you run checkpatch on this ?

> +{
> +	unsigned long val;
> +	int ret;
> +
> +	ret = sscanf(buf, "%lu", &val);
> +	if (ret != 1)
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +
> +	ret = freq_qos_update_request(policy->max_freq_req, val);
> +	return ret >= 0 ? count : ret;
> +}
> +
> +static ssize_t store_scaling_min_freq
> +(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, const char *buf, size_t count)
> +{
> +	unsigned long val;
> +	int ret;
> +
> +	ret = sscanf(buf, "%lu", &val);
> +	if (ret != 1)
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +
> +	ret = freq_qos_update_request(policy->min_freq_req, val);
> +	return ret >= 0 ? count : ret;
> +}
>  
>  /*
>   * show_cpuinfo_cur_freq - current CPU frequency as detected by hardware
> -- 
> 2.17.1

-- 
viresh