Re: [PATCH v1 10/10] cpufreq: Pass policy pointer to ->update_limits()

[srinivas pandruvada]

On Tue, 2025-04-08 at 15:37 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 8, 2025 at 1:41 PM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> > 
> > On Tue, Apr 8, 2025 at 12:28 AM srinivas pandruvada
> > <srinivas.pandruvada@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > 
> > > On Mon, 2025-04-07 at 20:48 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Mar 28, 2025 at 9:49 PM Rafael J. Wysocki
> > > > <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > 
> > > > > Since cpufreq_update_limits() obtains a cpufreq policy
> > > > > pointer for
> > > > > the
> > > > > given CPU and reference counts the corresponding policy
> > > > > object, it
> > > > > may
> > > > > as well pass the policy pointer to the cpufreq driver's -
> > > > > > update_limits()
> > > > > callback which allows that callback to avoid invoking
> > > > > cpufreq_cpu_get()
> > > > > for the same CPU.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Accordingly, redefine ->update_limits() to take a policy
> > > > > pointer
> > > > > instead
> > > > > of a CPU number and update both drivers implementing it,
> > > > > intel_pstate
> > > > > and amd-pstate, as needed.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > 
> > > Hi Rafael,
> > > 
> > > > Hi Srinivas,
> > > > 
> > > > If you have any concerns regarding this patch, please let me
> > > > know
> > > > (note that it is based on the [05/10]).
> > > > 
> > > Changes looks fine, but wants to test out some update limits from
> > > interrupt path.
> > > Checked your branches at linux-pm, not able to locate in any
> > > branch to
> > > apply.
> > > Please point me to a branch.
> > 
> > I'll put it in 'testing' later today.
> 
> Now available from
> 
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/rafael/linux-pm.git
> testing
> 
Looks good.

Acked-by: Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Thanks,
Srinivas