Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] cpufreq: cpufreq_boost_trigger_state() optimization

[Viresh Kumar]

On 02-12-25, 09:32, zhenglifeng (A) wrote:
> On 2025/12/1 11:42, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > On 28-11-25, 17:13, Lifeng Zheng wrote:
> >> Simplify the error handling branch code in cpufreq_boost_trigger_state().
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Lifeng Zheng <zhenglifeng1@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >>  drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 11 +++--------
> >>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> >> index a4399e5490da..a725747572c9 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> >> @@ -2824,18 +2824,13 @@ static int cpufreq_boost_trigger_state(int state)
> >>  
> >>  		ret = policy_set_boost(policy, state);
> >>  		if (ret)
> >> -			goto err_reset_state;
> >> +			break;
> >>  	}
> >>  
> >> -	if (ret)
> >> -		goto err_reset_state;
> >> -
> >>  	cpus_read_unlock();
> >>  
> >> -	return 0;
> >> -
> >> -err_reset_state:
> >> -	cpus_read_unlock();
> >> +	if (!ret)
> > 
> > Maybe we can make this `if (likely(!ret))`
> 
> For the platforms which are not boost supported, this will never be
> matched. Is `likely` OK in this situation?

Ideally they won't have a `boost` file in sysfs, and if they have it, we don't
really need to optimize the failure case.

-- 
viresh