The documentation for cpu_latency_qos_request_active() incorrectly stated
the return type as 'int' instead of 'bool', and the return value
description was incomplete. This patch corrects the return type and
clarifies the return value semantics.

Fixes: b8e6e27c626e ("Documentation: PM: QoS: Update to reflect previous code changes")
Signed-off-by: Zhongqiu Han <quic_zhonhan@quicinc.com>
---
 Documentation/power/pm_qos_interface.rst | 6 +++---
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/power/pm_qos_interface.rst b/Documentation/power/pm_qos_interface.rst
index 1ede4cafc2e3..c6b8b9cda166 100644
--- a/Documentation/power/pm_qos_interface.rst
+++ b/Documentation/power/pm_qos_interface.rst
@@ -55,9 +55,9 @@ void cpu_latency_qos_remove_request(handle):
 int cpu_latency_qos_limit():
   Returns the aggregated value for the CPU latency QoS.
 
-int cpu_latency_qos_request_active(handle):
-  Returns if the request is still active, i.e. it has not been removed from the
-  CPU latency QoS list.
+bool cpu_latency_qos_request_active(handle):
+  Returns true if the request is still active, i.e. it has not been removed from
+  the CPU latency QoS list.
 
 
 From user space:
-- 
2.43.0

On 7/21/25 13:41, Zhongqiu Han wrote:
> The documentation for cpu_latency_qos_request_active() incorrectly stated
> the return type as 'int' instead of 'bool', and the return value
> description was incomplete. This patch corrects the return type and
> clarifies the return value semantics.
> 
> Fixes: b8e6e27c626e ("Documentation: PM: QoS: Update to reflect previous code changes")
> Signed-off-by: Zhongqiu Han <quic_zhonhan@quicinc.com>
> ---
>  Documentation/power/pm_qos_interface.rst | 6 +++---
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/power/pm_qos_interface.rst b/Documentation/power/pm_qos_interface.rst
> index 1ede4cafc2e3..c6b8b9cda166 100644
> --- a/Documentation/power/pm_qos_interface.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/power/pm_qos_interface.rst
> @@ -55,9 +55,9 @@ void cpu_latency_qos_remove_request(handle):
>  int cpu_latency_qos_limit():
>    Returns the aggregated value for the CPU latency QoS.
>  
> -int cpu_latency_qos_request_active(handle):
> -  Returns if the request is still active, i.e. it has not been removed from the
> -  CPU latency QoS list.
> +bool cpu_latency_qos_request_active(handle):
> +  Returns true if the request is still active, i.e. it has not been removed from
> +  the CPU latency QoS list.
>  
>  
>  From user space:

I guess this should be swapped in the series with patch 3? (First fix old, then add
new?)
Anyway it applies in and of itself.

Reviewed-by: Christian Loehle <christian.loehle@arm.com>

On 8/1/2025 7:27 PM, Christian Loehle wrote:
> On 7/21/25 13:41, Zhongqiu Han wrote:
>> The documentation for cpu_latency_qos_request_active() incorrectly stated
>> the return type as 'int' instead of 'bool', and the return value
>> description was incomplete. This patch corrects the return type and
>> clarifies the return value semantics.
>>
>> Fixes: b8e6e27c626e ("Documentation: PM: QoS: Update to reflect previous code changes")
>> Signed-off-by: Zhongqiu Han <quic_zhonhan@quicinc.com>
>> ---
>>   Documentation/power/pm_qos_interface.rst | 6 +++---
>>   1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/power/pm_qos_interface.rst b/Documentation/power/pm_qos_interface.rst
>> index 1ede4cafc2e3..c6b8b9cda166 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/power/pm_qos_interface.rst
>> +++ b/Documentation/power/pm_qos_interface.rst
>> @@ -55,9 +55,9 @@ void cpu_latency_qos_remove_request(handle):
>>   int cpu_latency_qos_limit():
>>     Returns the aggregated value for the CPU latency QoS.
>>   
>> -int cpu_latency_qos_request_active(handle):
>> -  Returns if the request is still active, i.e. it has not been removed from the
>> -  CPU latency QoS list.
>> +bool cpu_latency_qos_request_active(handle):
>> +  Returns true if the request is still active, i.e. it has not been removed from
>> +  the CPU latency QoS list.
>>   
>>   
>>   From user space:
> 
> I guess this should be swapped in the series with patch 3? (First fix old, then add
> new?)
> Anyway it applies in and of itself.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Christian Loehle <christian.loehle@arm.com>
> 
Thanks Christian for the review~

Seems swapping the patches might help prevent misunderstanding and make 
the sequence clearer, if needed, I can swap them.

-- 
Thx and BRs,
Zhongqiu Han