Re: [PATCH v2 5/7] ACPI: processor: idle: Remove useless codes about the verification of cstate count

["lihuisong (C)" <lihuisong@huawei.com>]

在 2025/11/4 2:10, Rafael J. Wysocki 写道:
> On Mon, Nov 3, 2025 at 9:42 AM Huisong Li <lihuisong@huawei.com> wrote:
>> The acpi_processor_setup_cstates and acpi_processor_setup_cpuidle_cx will
>> be called after successfully obtaining the power information. These setup
>> functions have their own main role, but also verify the validity of cstate
>> count.
>>
>> Actually, the acpi_processor_get_power_info_cst will return failure if the
>> cstate count is zero and acpi_processor_get_power_info will return failure.
>>
>> So the verification of cstate count in these functions are useless.
>>
>> No intentional functional impact.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Huisong Li <lihuisong@huawei.com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c | 22 +++++++---------------
>>   1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c b/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c
>> index 4627b00257e6..1f332f02d273 100644
>> --- a/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c
>> +++ b/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c
>> @@ -732,8 +732,8 @@ static int __cpuidle acpi_idle_enter_s2idle(struct cpuidle_device *dev,
>>          return 0;
>>   }
>>
>> -static int acpi_processor_setup_cpuidle_cx(struct acpi_processor *pr,
>> -                                          struct cpuidle_device *dev)
>> +static void acpi_processor_setup_cpuidle_cx(struct acpi_processor *pr,
>> +                                           struct cpuidle_device *dev)
>>   {
>>          int i, count = ACPI_IDLE_STATE_START;
>>          struct acpi_processor_cx *cx;
>> @@ -753,14 +753,9 @@ static int acpi_processor_setup_cpuidle_cx(struct acpi_processor *pr,
>>                  if (count == CPUIDLE_STATE_MAX)
>>                          break;
>>          }
>> -
>> -       if (!count)
>> -               return -EINVAL;
>> -
>> -       return 0;
>>   }
>>
>> -static int acpi_processor_setup_cstates(struct acpi_processor *pr)
>> +static void acpi_processor_setup_cstates(struct acpi_processor *pr)
>>   {
>>          int i, count;
>>          struct acpi_processor_cx *cx;
>> @@ -822,11 +817,6 @@ static int acpi_processor_setup_cstates(struct acpi_processor *pr)
>>          }
>>
>>          drv->state_count = count;
>> -
>> -       if (!count)
>> -               return -EINVAL;
>> -
>> -       return 0;
>>   }
>>
>>   static inline void acpi_processor_cstate_first_run_checks(void)
>> @@ -1248,7 +1238,8 @@ static int acpi_processor_setup_cpuidle_states(struct acpi_processor *pr)
>>          if (pr->flags.has_lpi)
>>                  return acpi_processor_setup_lpi_states(pr);
>>
>> -       return acpi_processor_setup_cstates(pr);
>> +       acpi_processor_setup_cstates(pr);
>> +       return 0;
>>   }
>>
>>   /**
>> @@ -1268,7 +1259,8 @@ static int acpi_processor_setup_cpuidle_dev(struct acpi_processor *pr,
>>          if (pr->flags.has_lpi)
>>                  return 0;
>>
>> -       return acpi_processor_setup_cpuidle_cx(pr, dev);
>> +       acpi_processor_setup_cpuidle_cx(pr, dev);
>> +       return 0;
>>   }
>>
>>   static int acpi_processor_get_power_info(struct acpi_processor *pr)
>> --
> Does this patch depend on the previous patches in the series?  If it
> doesn't, why don't you send it independently?
Good suggestion. Thanks, got it.
This patch doesn't depend on them.
But patch 6/7 and 7/7 depend on this patch and patch 3/7.
If they still need some times to discuss, I can send this patch first.
>
>