On 08/27/13 23:34, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 28 August 2013 03:31, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c
>> index b9b20fd..523af48 100644
>> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c
>> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c
>> @@ -137,7 +137,7 @@ void gov_queue_work(struct dbs_data *dbs_data, struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
>> return;
>>
>> if (!all_cpus) {
>> - __gov_queue_work(smp_processor_id(), dbs_data, delay);
>> + __gov_queue_work(policy->cpu, dbs_data, delay);
> This is probably wrong.. We wanted to queue work on current cpu and
> not policy->cpu.. Can you use raw_smp_processor_id()?
Ah right, for the case where the policy covers more than one cpu.
raw_smp_processor_id() would work but it probably also needs a large
comment. I'll resend with that.
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
hosted by The Linux Foundation
--
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
