We accidentally deleted the "i++" as part of a cleanup.  Restore it.

Fixes: 3f7ced7ac9af ("drivers/thermal/cpufreq_cooling : Refactor thermal_power_cpu_get_power tracing")
Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@linaro.org>
---
This is based on static analysis and not tested.

 drivers/thermal/cpufreq_cooling.c | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

diff --git a/drivers/thermal/cpufreq_cooling.c b/drivers/thermal/cpufreq_cooling.c
index 280071be30b1..a074192896de 100644
--- a/drivers/thermal/cpufreq_cooling.c
+++ b/drivers/thermal/cpufreq_cooling.c
@@ -249,6 +249,7 @@ static int cpufreq_get_requested_power(struct thermal_cooling_device *cdev,
 			load = 0;
 
 		total_load += load;
+		i++;
 	}
 
 	cpufreq_cdev->last_load = total_load;
-- 
2.43.0

Hi Dan,

On 5/4/24 12:25, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> We accidentally deleted the "i++" as part of a cleanup.  Restore it.
> 
> Fixes: 3f7ced7ac9af ("drivers/thermal/cpufreq_cooling : Refactor thermal_power_cpu_get_power tracing")
> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@linaro.org>
> ---
> This is based on static analysis and not tested.

Thank you for the patch. I have analyzed the code and why it
haven't trigger an issue when I was testing it.

I looks like the function get_load() which is called above that 'i++'
and takes the 'i' as the last argument is compiled in 2 versions:
1. for SMP system and the last argument 'cpu_idx' is ignored
2. for !SMP where we use the last argument 'cpu_idx' which is 'i'
value. Although, for !SMP system we only have 1 cpu, thus the
initialized 'int i = 0' at the beginning of that
cpufreq_get_requested_power() is used correctly.
The loop for !SMP goes only once.

> 
>   drivers/thermal/cpufreq_cooling.c | 1 +
>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/thermal/cpufreq_cooling.c b/drivers/thermal/cpufreq_cooling.c
> index 280071be30b1..a074192896de 100644
> --- a/drivers/thermal/cpufreq_cooling.c
> +++ b/drivers/thermal/cpufreq_cooling.c
> @@ -249,6 +249,7 @@ static int cpufreq_get_requested_power(struct thermal_cooling_device *cdev,
>   			load = 0;
>   
>   		total_load += load;
> +		i++;
>   	}
>   
>   	cpufreq_cdev->last_load = total_load;

Would you agree that I will keep you as 'Reported-by' and send a
separate patch to change that !SMP code completely in that
get_load() function and get rid of the 'cpu_idx' argument?
Or I'm happy that you can develop such code and I can review it.
It's up to you.

Regards,
Lukasz

On Mon, May 06, 2024 at 10:41:52AM +0100, Lukasz Luba wrote:
> Hi Dan,
> 
> On 5/4/24 12:25, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > We accidentally deleted the "i++" as part of a cleanup.  Restore it.
> > 
> > Fixes: 3f7ced7ac9af ("drivers/thermal/cpufreq_cooling : Refactor thermal_power_cpu_get_power tracing")
> > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@linaro.org>
> > ---
> > This is based on static analysis and not tested.
> 
> Thank you for the patch. I have analyzed the code and why it
> haven't trigger an issue when I was testing it.
> 
> I looks like the function get_load() which is called above that 'i++'
> and takes the 'i' as the last argument is compiled in 2 versions:
> 1. for SMP system and the last argument 'cpu_idx' is ignored
> 2. for !SMP where we use the last argument 'cpu_idx' which is 'i'
> value. Although, for !SMP system we only have 1 cpu, thus the
> initialized 'int i = 0' at the beginning of that
> cpufreq_get_requested_power() is used correctly.
> The loop for !SMP goes only once.
> 
> > 
> >   drivers/thermal/cpufreq_cooling.c | 1 +
> >   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/thermal/cpufreq_cooling.c b/drivers/thermal/cpufreq_cooling.c
> > index 280071be30b1..a074192896de 100644
> > --- a/drivers/thermal/cpufreq_cooling.c
> > +++ b/drivers/thermal/cpufreq_cooling.c
> > @@ -249,6 +249,7 @@ static int cpufreq_get_requested_power(struct thermal_cooling_device *cdev,
> >   			load = 0;
> >   		total_load += load;
> > +		i++;
> >   	}
> >   	cpufreq_cdev->last_load = total_load;
> 
> Would you agree that I will keep you as 'Reported-by' and send a
> separate patch to change that !SMP code completely in that
> get_load() function and get rid of the 'cpu_idx' argument?

Yes, please.

> Or I'm happy that you can develop such code and I can review it.
> It's up to you.

Happy to just get a Reported-by tag.

regards,
dan carpenter

On Mon, May 06, 2024 at 10:41:52AM +0100, Lukasz Luba wrote:
> Would you agree that I will keep you as 'Reported-by' and send a
> separate patch to change that !SMP code completely in that
> get_load() function and get rid of the 'cpu_idx' argument?

Yes, please.

regards,
dan carpenter