The policy might have been changed since last call of target().
Thus, using cpufreq_frequency_table_target(), which depends on
policy to find the correspoding index from a frequency, may return
inconsistent index for freqs.old. Thus, old_index should be
calculated not based on the current policy.
We have been observing such issue when scaling_min/max_freq were
updated and sometimes caused system lockups due to incorrectly
configured voltages.
Signed-off-by: MyungJoo Ham <myungjoo.ham@xxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/cpufreq/exynos-cpufreq.c | 13 +++++++++++--
1 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/exynos-cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/exynos-cpufreq.c
index b243a7e..1577522 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/exynos-cpufreq.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/exynos-cpufreq.c
@@ -62,8 +62,17 @@ static int exynos_target(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
goto out;
}
- if (cpufreq_frequency_table_target(policy, freq_table,
- freqs.old, relation, &old_index)) {
+ /*
+ * The policy may have been changed so that we cannot get proper
+ * old_index with cpufreq_frequency_table_target(). Thus, ignore
+ * policy and get the index from the raw frequency table.
+ */
+ for (old_index = 0;
+ freq_table[old_index].frequency != CPUFREQ_TABLE_END;
+ old_index++)
+ if (freq_table[old_index].frequency == freqs.old)
+ break;
+ if (freq_table[old_index].frequency == CPUFREQ_TABLE_END) {
ret = -EINVAL;
goto out;
}
--
1.7.4.1
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cpufreq" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
