From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kapileshwar Singh Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/5] thermal: cpu_cooling: update the cpu device when cpufreq updates the policy cpu Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2015 15:34:55 +0000 Message-ID: <54F5D49F.2060408@arm.com> References: <1425316643-31991-1-git-send-email-javi.merino@arm.com> <1425316643-31991-6-git-send-email-javi.merino@arm.com> <54F5941F.6030402@arm.com> <54F59DEF.3020700@arm.com> <54F5CEBC.1070303@arm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Viresh Kumar Cc: Javi Merino , Eduardo Valentin , Zhang Rui , Linux PM list , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Punit Agrawal , Lina Iyer , Mark Brown , Jon Medhurst List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On 03/03/15 15:29, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 3 March 2015 at 20:39, Kapileshwar Singh wrote: > >> I did test this but we were working with the assumption that OPPs should be populated for all the CPUs and also that OPPs are lost for a hotplugged CPU which I see is not the case. > > Then what did you test? My point here is, even with the latest patches > that you have > sent, you wouldn't be able to get the OPPs once policy->cpu goes down. So, how > did this worked for you ? We were basing our fix on possibility of having OPPs for all the CPUs and we incorrectly attributed the erroneous OPP we got from dev_pm_opp_find_freq_exact to the missing OPPs in the other CPUs. > >> We have looked at this more closely and found that problem lies in: >> >> freq = cpufreq_quick_get(cpumask_any(&cpufreq_device->allowed_cpus)); >> >> which returns a NULL frequency as we are not checking for online CPUs here. We shall come up with a fix for this. Many thanks for helping us with the investigation. > > Right. >