From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: viresh.kumar@linaro.org (Viresh Kumar)
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 09:41:37 +0530
Subject: Kernel warning in cpufreq_add_dev()
In-Reply-To: <1496109.Jd9MGDryNS@vostro.rjw.lan>
References: <20160819110032.GM1041@n2100.armlinux.org.uk>
 <2310664.2BksGViL4r@vostro.rjw.lan> <20160824131316.GI25143@ubuntu>
 <1496109.Jd9MGDryNS@vostro.rjw.lan>
Message-ID: <20160831041137.GE5539@vireshk-i7>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On 31-08-16, 03:26, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 24, 2016 06:43:16 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > On 22-08-16, 19:32, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > But it will be called in that path during physical CPU hot-add, won't it?
> > 
> > What about something like this instead (completely untested) ?
> 
> Inline, please?

I am not sure what that means. I pasted that inline in my previous mail only.

> > @Russell: Can you please try this ??
> 
> I was thinking about something similar, but won't the WARN_ON()s in
> cpufreq_add/remove_dev_symlink() still trigger, say if there's more
> than one CPU in a policy and both happen to be online initially?

real CPUs should already be online and their device structure should be
available, isn't it ?

-- 
viresh