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

[lihuisong (C)]

在 2025/11/4 2:10, Rafael J. Wysocki 写道:
> On Mon, Nov 3, 2025 at 9:42 AM Huisong Li <lihuisong@xxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >   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.
>