With a recent change the logic here is changed a bit and I just figured out it
is something we don't want.
Consider we have four CPUs (0,1,2,3) managed by a policy and policy->cpu is set
to 0. Now we are suspending and hence we call __cpufreq_remove_dev_prepare() for
cpu 1, 2 & 3..
With the current code we always call cpufreq_nominate_new_policy_cpu() for cpu
1, 2 & 3 whereas we should skipped most of __cpufreq_remove_dev_prepare()
routine.
Lets fix it by moving the check for !frozen inside the first if block.
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
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 5e0a82e..0e11fcb 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
@@ -1182,8 +1182,9 @@ static int __cpufreq_remove_dev_prepare(struct device *dev,
cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, policy->cpus);
unlock_policy_rwsem_write(cpu);
- if (cpu != policy->cpu && !frozen) {
- sysfs_remove_link(&dev->kobj, "cpufreq");
+ if (cpu != policy->cpu) {
+ if (!frozen)
+ sysfs_remove_link(&dev->kobj, "cpufreq");
} else if (cpus > 1) {
new_cpu = cpufreq_nominate_new_policy_cpu(policy, cpu, frozen);
if (new_cpu >= 0) {
--
1.7.12.rc2.18.g61b472e
--
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
