Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] cpufreq: tegra124: Remove use of disable_cpufreq

[Jon Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com>]

On 20/05/2025 11:02, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 20-05-25, 10:53, Jon Hunter wrote:
>> I understand, but this seems odd. It would be odd that the device may just
>> disappear after resuming from suspend if it fails to resume. I have not seen
>> this done for other drivers that fail to resume. Presumably this is not the
>> only CPU Freq driver that could fail to resume either?
>>
>> It makes the code messy because now we have more than one place where the
>> device could be unregistered.
> 
> Fair enough.
> 
> This driver, along with other cpufreq drivers, can fail at multiple
> places during suspend/resume (and other operations). If something goes
> wrong, we print an error to inform the user. Should we avoid doing
> anything else (like everyone else) ? i.e. Just remove the call to
> disable_cpufreq(), as all later calls will fail anyway.

I think that would be fine. Given that the tegra124-cpufreq driver is 
the parent, if it fails to resume, then I assume that cpufreq-dt driver 
would not resume either? Has anyone tested this?

Jon

-- 
nvpublic