On 25 March 2013 14:06, Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@xxxxxx> wrote:
> There is a line in the code a little above the ones you deleted that
> also sets these same variables. I guess you were relying on that line to
> set policy->cur, but that also sets policy->{min, max} which can be
> cleaned up.
This code is rather confusing or wrong, this was the state of code before
this patch:
policy->cur = policy->min = policy->max = davinci_getspeed(0);
if (freq_table) {
result = cpufreq_frequency_table_cpuinfo(policy, freq_table);
if (!result)
cpufreq_frequency_table_get_attr(freq_table,
policy->cpu);
} else {
policy->cpuinfo.min_freq = policy->min;
policy->cpuinfo.max_freq = policy->max;
}
policy->min = policy->cpuinfo.min_freq;
policy->max = policy->cpuinfo.max_freq;
policy->cur = davinci_getspeed(0);
The tricky part is if/else, where if don't return error if
cpufreq_frequency_table_cpuinfo() fails. We want to set ->min[max]
and cpuinfo.min[max] always. And i can see this code not doing that for some
case even with my patch.
Possible scenarios:
1. Valid freq_table: My patch + what you suggested is required.
2. Invalid freq_table: We never set cpuinfo.min[max] with or without my patch
3. No freq_table: Only my patch is required.
If i do what you suggested then 2 and 3 would fail... If you want to
return error
in case cpufreq_frequency_table_cpuinfo(), then i can fix it properly.
--
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
