From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from foss.arm.com (foss.arm.com [217.140.110.172]) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 197F2288A2; Mon, 10 Feb 2025 11:25:10 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.140.110.172 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1739186712; cv=none; b=FQpQiOYl5uzvdqQKvSQRq7vp217TLZi8Erqedy8cUZfCFOabnixCcONr4rqXnO4Lv95ci7cMBo0p+wfnRxG//4hAX2ron+cwHTj7S9Z0VexEz5EigvQAB1x5l6oYEfhBowklnKMVBns6IaMB25qQRgR0aM+xOJJGT+3qdqfukSo= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1739186712; c=relaxed/simple; bh=AevJJ+A4/vl0rMnJXDp7MPqelhzo4B16VM0ILy0ZqZc=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=jxmhqzJ2nHHYWGR7EInbowz9JLt8jENHBzj+Mcx2r5/qhSipqdJ5CG1Fnp1LsbXX2t1ZfqJrS6UH/ya/REXknRD9bxH6ljqAPwLS3/Bz5R7WL57CHkFrriDz2uvMET4Lfl1lTuzaM84vZv4udmOkiGQ+Hy3pKyyHyQpocfJ4FGs= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=arm.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.140.110.172 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=arm.com Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13F0B1007; Mon, 10 Feb 2025 03:25:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.57.77.229] (unknown [10.57.77.229]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 34C6D3F5A1; Mon, 10 Feb 2025 03:25:09 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <764b2869-8023-45b2-bae9-5a24be1ea519@arm.com> Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2025 11:25:07 +0000 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] PM: EM: Drop unused parameter from em_adjust_new_capacity() To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: LKML , Linux PM , Dietmar Eggemann , Ricardo Neri References: <6137833.lOV4Wx5bFT@rjwysocki.net> <2369979.ElGaqSPkdT@rjwysocki.net> Content-Language: en-US From: Lukasz Luba In-Reply-To: <2369979.ElGaqSPkdT@rjwysocki.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 1/27/25 13:37, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > From: Rafael J. Wysocki > > The max_cap parameter is never used in em_adjust_new_capacity(), so > drop it. > > No functional impact. > > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki > --- > kernel/power/energy_model.c | 5 ++--- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > --- a/kernel/power/energy_model.c > +++ b/kernel/power/energy_model.c > @@ -728,8 +728,7 @@ > * are correctly calculated. > */ > static void em_adjust_new_capacity(struct device *dev, > - struct em_perf_domain *pd, > - u64 max_cap) > + struct em_perf_domain *pd) > { > struct em_perf_table __rcu *em_table; > > @@ -800,7 +799,7 @@ > cpu, cpu_capacity, em_max_perf); > > dev = get_cpu_device(cpu); > - em_adjust_new_capacity(dev, pd, cpu_capacity); > + em_adjust_new_capacity(dev, pd); > } > > free_cpumask_var(cpu_done_mask); > > > LGTM Reviewed-by: Lukasz Luba