On Tuesday, November 26, 2013 07:31:50 AM Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 26 November 2013 02:43, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Monday, November 25, 2013 09:43:59 AM Dirk Brandewie wrote: > >> This is a platform specific bug fix AFAICT and belongs in a platform > >> specific piece of code > > In case we end up doing that, we will do lots of code redundancy in > cpufreq drivers. And as Rafael said, some platforms might never > know they have booted with an out of table frequency and so taking > care of this at a single place is better, where we are sure that it > will get fixed. > > >> The core should not be working around bootloader bugs IMHO. Silently > >> fixing it is evil IMHO at a minimum the core should complain LOUDLY > >> about this happening otherwise the bootloaders will have no incentive to > >> get their act together. > > That looks correct.. > > > Yes, we can add a WARN_ON() there. Still, though, the core's responsibility > > is to ensure that (a) either we can continue safely or (b) we can't, in which > > case it should just fail the initialization. Whether or not it should panic() > > I'm not sure. > > But is this that big crime, that we do a WARN on it? CPU was running on > a workable frequency, it wasn't mentioned in the table, that's it. > > Probably just throw an print message that CPU found to be running on > out of table frequency, and that got fixed.. I was talking about the case when your __cpufreq_driver_target(policy, policy->cur - 1, CPUFREQ_RELATION_L); fails. The other case is not really interesting. Thanks! -- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center. -- 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
