On 17 February 2014 05:51, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Friday, February 14, 2014 04:30:41 PM Viresh Kumar wrote: >> cpufreq_update_policy() is called from two places currently. From a workqueue >> handled queued from cpufreq_bp_resume() for boot CPU and from >> cpufreq_cpu_callback() whenever a CPU is added. >> >> The first one makes sure that boot CPU is running on the frequency present in >> policy->cpu. But we don't really need a call from cpufreq_cpu_callback(), >> because we always call cpufreq_driver->init() (which will set policy->cur >> correctly) whenever first CPU of any policy is added back. And so every policy >> structure is guaranteed to have the right frequency in policy->cur. > > That sounds good, but doing the extra cpufreq_update_policy() shouldn't actually > hurt, should it? Yeah, it shouldn't hurt badly.. > So, that would be a cleanup rather than a fix, right? Hmm, yeah.. -- 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
