Messages in this thread | | On 22/06/17 19:58, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 22-06-17, 10:39, Juri Lelli wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On 21/06/17 10:16, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > > Use the standard way of returning errors instead of returning 0(failure) > > > OR 1(success) and making it hard to read. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> > > > --- > > > arch/arm/kernel/topology.c | 2 +- > > > drivers/base/arch_topology.c | 8 ++++---- > > > 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/topology.c b/arch/arm/kernel/topology.c > > > index bf949a763dbe..a7ef4c35855e 100644 > > > --- a/arch/arm/kernel/topology.c > > > +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/topology.c > > > @@ -111,7 +111,7 @@ static void __init parse_dt_topology(void) > > > continue; > > > } > > > > > > - if (topology_parse_cpu_capacity(cn, cpu)) { > > > + if (!topology_parse_cpu_capacity(cn, cpu)) { > > > > Not sure why you want to change this. > > I just didn't find it straight forward to read. > > > I currently read it as "if cpu_capacity parsing succedeed" continue with > > next CPU, otherwise we set cap_from_dt to false and fall back to using > > efficiencies. > > Actually, I can just make the return type bool and that should solve > the issues I was seeing and keep the code as it is. > > Will that be fine ? >
Think so.
| |