From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dirk Brandewie Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] CPUFreq Fixes for 3.9 Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2013 16:08:49 -0800 Message-ID: <51159391.2020002@gmail.com> References: <1653071.l2kN4Hy2U6@vostro.rjw.lan> <2792362.JXCag4GJsR@vostro.rjw.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=HXn5/IKReqQTtKTtV2hUFX0UlwRjGEDPEA50jHFO6Zk=; b=l2NEtCYYXNkDQk3UpQbw77aFofn8K3+Qz3ir5PeGBdf9pwpjhfGkWQjWR0C2WZr9Zt uVKiNDi+Zbl4/QDdWgiLqN3+BW2Igvv+nzvQ2NpKDxOftJ2jiaPTERqdp1Uo+kNTcU2M pQzbWQm5YihyOOZPG4f2fhx5tqqw/6kromNx7r2Fd0qdz1SaI2dmn3VLR0waLngKKswg hh/1+bh3EHmpwWLLsIzbABvCIwIJ+DrKGh7BpQcJra50onCcu0kCoz+BpPJD40SfFkRd IZjzARMCta+oz9uWvEDbQVidPXgU6KWjYdYP4Zp+i08IYVA0o7QR4PMhsx4Fz8vY7zEz myjg== In-Reply-To: <2792362.JXCag4GJsR@vostro.rjw.lan> Sender: cpufreq-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Viresh Kumar , valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu, artem.savkov@gmail.com, cpufreq@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org, robin.randhawa@arm.com, Steve.Bannister@arm.com, Liviu.Dudau@arm.com, Nathan Zimmer , dirk.brandewie@gmail.com On 02/08/2013 03:56 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Friday, February 08, 2013 09:02:37 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> On Friday, February 08, 2013 08:06:52 PM Viresh Kumar wrote: >>> On 8 February 2013 18:02, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>>> So as I said, please rework the fixes on top of linux-pm.git/pm-cpufreq. >>> >>> I already did. Please check for-rafael branch >> >> Cool. This is the one I'm supposed to apply, then? > > OK, applied to bleeding-edge. Hopefully it will be build-tested over the > weekend and I can move it to linux-next. > > I dropped the rwlock/RCU patches from Nathan, though, because I had some > doubts about the correctness of the RCU one and the rwlock one alone would > conflict with your further changes. One piece of fallout from dropping Nathan patches I had rebased mine on top of them. This fixes the breakage do you want me to spin my patches or send this separately?: diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c index 0ebdf8c..a008b8e 100644 --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c @@ -1024,7 +1024,7 @@ static int __cpufreq_remove_dev(struct device *dev, struct __cpufreq_governor(data, CPUFREQ_GOV_STOP); #ifdef CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU - if (!driver->setpolicy) + if (!cpufreq_driver->setpolicy) strncpy(per_cpu(cpufreq_cpu_governor, cpu), data->governor->name, CPUFREQ_NAME_LEN); #endif @@ -1771,7 +1771,7 @@ int cpufreq_update_policy(unsigned int cpu) pr_debug("Driver did not initialize current freq"); data->cur = policy.cur; } else { - if (data->cur != policy.cur && driver->target) + if (data->cur != policy.cur && cpufreq_driver->target) cpufreq_out_of_sync(cpu, data->cur, policy.cur); }