cpufreq: intel_pstate: Drop redundant intel_pstate_get_hwp_cap() call
It is not necessary to call intel_pstate_get_hwp_cap() from intel_pstate_update_perf_limits(), because it gets called from intel_pstate_verify_cpu_policy() which is either invoked directly right before intel_pstate_update_perf_limits(), in intel_cpufreq_verify_policy() in the passive mode, or called from driver callbacks in a sequence that causes it to be followed by an immediate intel_pstate_update_perf_limits(). Namely, in the active mode intel_cpufreq_verify_policy() is called by intel_pstate_verify_policy() which is the ->verify() callback routine of intel_pstate and gets called by the cpufreq core right before intel_pstate_set_policy(), which is the driver's ->setoplicy() callback routine, where intel_pstate_update_perf_limits() is called. Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
This commit is contained in:
parent
2585cf9dfa
commit
458b03f81a
@ -2486,18 +2486,14 @@ static void intel_pstate_update_perf_limits(struct cpudata *cpu,
|
||||
* HWP needs some special consideration, because HWP_REQUEST uses
|
||||
* abstract values to represent performance rather than pure ratios.
|
||||
*/
|
||||
if (hwp_active) {
|
||||
intel_pstate_get_hwp_cap(cpu);
|
||||
if (hwp_active && cpu->pstate.scaling != perf_ctl_scaling) {
|
||||
int scaling = cpu->pstate.scaling;
|
||||
int freq;
|
||||
|
||||
if (cpu->pstate.scaling != perf_ctl_scaling) {
|
||||
int scaling = cpu->pstate.scaling;
|
||||
int freq;
|
||||
|
||||
freq = max_policy_perf * perf_ctl_scaling;
|
||||
max_policy_perf = DIV_ROUND_UP(freq, scaling);
|
||||
freq = min_policy_perf * perf_ctl_scaling;
|
||||
min_policy_perf = DIV_ROUND_UP(freq, scaling);
|
||||
}
|
||||
freq = max_policy_perf * perf_ctl_scaling;
|
||||
max_policy_perf = DIV_ROUND_UP(freq, scaling);
|
||||
freq = min_policy_perf * perf_ctl_scaling;
|
||||
min_policy_perf = DIV_ROUND_UP(freq, scaling);
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
pr_debug("cpu:%d min_policy_perf:%d max_policy_perf:%d\n",
|
||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user