Re: cpufreq regression due to dceff5c "cpufreq: fix serialization issues with freq change notifiers"

[Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org>]

On 09/11/2013 04:51 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 11, 2013 04:20:36 PM Stephen Warren wrote:
>> One of the test cases I run (not often enough, hence I just noticed this
>> late) is the following, to make sure our cpufreq driver is present, and
>> adjusting the CPU clock as expected:
>>
>> # echo 1000000 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/scaling_min_freq ;
>> sleep 1 ; cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/scaling_cur_freq ;
>> echo 216000 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/scaling_min_freq  ;
>> sleep 1 ; cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/scaling_cur_freq
>>
>> which prints the following when it works:
>>
>> 1000000
>> 216000
>>
>> In next-20130909, that doesn't work, but instead prints:
>>
>> 216000
>> 216000
>>
>> I've also seen the following during git bisect:
>>
>> 608000
>> 608000
>>
>> ... and perhaps other unexpected sets of values.
> 
> Can you please test the current linux-next?  I've reverted the commit that
> dceff5c attempted to fix, so the output should be correct now.

Yes, indeed next-20130911 works fine. Thanks, and sorry for the noise.