On 31 October 2013 03:22, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Queued up for 3.13, thanks!
Hmm.. thanks for applying this but there was a minor bug here which
is fixed by below commit.. You don't really need to merge this with
the original commit and so can go as a separate commit..
Attached for applying.. Tested by Nico.
--------x------------------x-------------
Author: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu Oct 31 03:45:42 2013 +0530
cpufreq: arm_big_little: Call routine instead of passing its address
In bL_cpufreq_init() we need to fill per-cpu cpu_last_req_freq
with the current
frequency of cpu. Instead of calling the function we passed its
address to this
routine by mistake earlier. Lets fix it by calling the routine instead.
Tested-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/cpufreq/arm_big_little.c | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/arm_big_little.c b/drivers/cpufreq/arm_big_little.c
index 2b2a44a..ee66449 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/arm_big_little.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/arm_big_little.c
@@ -461,7 +461,8 @@ static int bL_cpufreq_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
policy->cpuinfo.transition_latency = CPUFREQ_ETERNAL;
if (is_bL_switching_enabled())
- per_cpu(cpu_last_req_freq, policy->cpu) = clk_get_cpu_rate;
+ per_cpu(cpu_last_req_freq, policy->cpu) =
+ clk_get_cpu_rate(policy->cpu);
dev_info(cpu_dev, "%s: CPU %d initialized\n", __func__, policy->cpu);
return 0;
From 88c0ffaec1df0f0ec24d095159459d2554780d9d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
Message-Id: <88c0ffaec1df0f0ec24d095159459d2554780d9d.1383172083.git.viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx>
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 03:45:42 +0530
Subject: [PATCH] cpufreq: arm_big_little: Call routine instead of passing its
address
In bL_cpufreq_init() we need to fill per-cpu cpu_last_req_freq with the current
frequency of cpu. Instead of calling the function we passed its address to this
routine by mistake earlier. Lets fix it by calling the routine instead.
Tested-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/cpufreq/arm_big_little.c | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/arm_big_little.c b/drivers/cpufreq/arm_big_little.c
index 2b2a44a..ee66449 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/arm_big_little.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/arm_big_little.c
@@ -461,7 +461,8 @@ static int bL_cpufreq_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
policy->cpuinfo.transition_latency = CPUFREQ_ETERNAL;
if (is_bL_switching_enabled())
- per_cpu(cpu_last_req_freq, policy->cpu) = clk_get_cpu_rate;
+ per_cpu(cpu_last_req_freq, policy->cpu) =
+ clk_get_cpu_rate(policy->cpu);
dev_info(cpu_dev, "%s: CPU %d initialized\n", __func__, policy->cpu);
return 0;
--
1.7.12.rc2.18.g61b472e
