linux-pm.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [PATCH 1/2] cpufreq: Set policy->related_cpus to atleast policy->cpus
@ 2013-01-29  4:39 Viresh Kumar
  2013-01-29  4:40 ` [PATCH 2/2] Revert "cpufreq: Don't use cpu removed during cpufreq_driver_unregister" Viresh Kumar
                   ` (2 more replies)
  0 siblings, 3 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Viresh Kumar @ 2013-01-29  4:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: rjw, inderpal.singh
  Cc: cpufreq, linux-pm, linux-kernel, linaro-dev, patches,
	robin.randhawa, Steve.Bannister, Liviu.Dudau, Viresh Kumar

With the addition of following patch, related_cpus is required to be set by
cpufreq platform drivers:

commit c1070fd743533efb54e98142252283583f379190
Author: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Date:   Mon Jan 14 13:23:04 2013 +0000

    cpufreq: Simplify cpufreq_add_dev()

Because this change is required by all platform drivers, why not do this in the
core itself. Hence, this patch is an attempt towards fixing all broken drivers.

>From now on, platforms don't really need to set related_cpus from their init()
routines, as the same work is done by core too.

If platform driver needs to set the related_cpus mask with some additional cpus,
other than cpus present in policy->cpus, they are free to do it as we aren't
overriding anything.

Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
---
Inderpal,

Can you please add your tested-by for this patch? And this will require you to
drop your patch for exynos-cpufreq.c :)

 drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 5 +++--
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
index f5dc02b..db81382 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
@@ -554,8 +554,6 @@ static ssize_t show_cpus(const struct cpumask *mask, char *buf)
  */
 static ssize_t show_related_cpus(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, char *buf)
 {
-	if (cpumask_empty(policy->related_cpus))
-		return show_cpus(policy->cpus, buf);
 	return show_cpus(policy->related_cpus, buf);
 }
 
@@ -945,6 +943,9 @@ static int cpufreq_add_dev(struct device *dev, struct subsys_interface *sif)
 		goto err_unlock_policy;
 	}
 
+	/* related cpus should atleast have policy->cpus */
+	cpumask_or(policy->related_cpus, policy->related_cpus, policy->cpus);
+
 	/*
 	 * affected cpus must always be the one, which are online. We aren't
 	 * managing offline cpus here.
-- 
1.7.12.rc2.18.g61b472e



^ permalink raw reply related	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2013-01-29 21:44 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2013-01-29  4:39 [PATCH 1/2] cpufreq: Set policy->related_cpus to atleast policy->cpus Viresh Kumar
2013-01-29  4:40 ` [PATCH 2/2] Revert "cpufreq: Don't use cpu removed during cpufreq_driver_unregister" Viresh Kumar
2013-01-29  4:41 ` [PATCH 1/2] cpufreq: Set policy->related_cpus to atleast policy->cpus Viresh Kumar
2013-01-29 11:51 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2013-01-29 14:30   ` Viresh Kumar
2013-01-29 21:50     ` Rafael J. Wysocki

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).