提交 88dc4384 编写于 作者: V Viresh Kumar 提交者: Rafael J. Wysocki

cpufreq: remove redundant 'policy' field from user_policy

Its always same as policy->policy, and there is no need to keep another
copy of it. Remove it.
Signed-off-by: NViresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
上级 e27f8bd2
......@@ -671,11 +671,7 @@ static ssize_t store_scaling_governor(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
return -EINVAL;
ret = cpufreq_set_policy(policy, &new_policy);
if (ret)
return ret;
policy->user_policy.policy = policy->policy;
return count;
return ret ? ret : count;
}
/**
......@@ -1322,9 +1318,6 @@ static int cpufreq_online(unsigned int cpu)
goto out_exit_policy;
}
if (new_policy)
policy->user_policy.policy = policy->policy;
up_write(&policy->rwsem);
kobject_uevent(&policy->kobj, KOBJ_ADD);
......@@ -2302,7 +2295,6 @@ int cpufreq_update_policy(unsigned int cpu)
memcpy(&new_policy, policy, sizeof(*policy));
new_policy.min = policy->user_policy.min;
new_policy.max = policy->user_policy.max;
new_policy.policy = policy->user_policy.policy;
/*
* BIOS might change freq behind our back
......
......@@ -54,7 +54,6 @@ struct cpufreq_cpuinfo {
struct cpufreq_real_policy {
unsigned int min; /* in kHz */
unsigned int max; /* in kHz */
unsigned int policy; /* see above */
};
struct cpufreq_policy {
......
Markdown is supported
0% .
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
先完成此消息的编辑!
想要评论请 注册