On Wednesday, March 12, 2014 01:25:17 PM Viresh Kumar wrote: > On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 4:57 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Well, ->setpolicy drivers are a special case anyway, so we can simply skip the > >> current frequency updates in __cpufreq_add_dev() and cpufreq_update_policy() > >> for them. > > > > In other words, we can do something like in the patch below I suppose? > > I don't think its a good idea to handle ->setpolicy specially here. > Zero shouldn't > be allowed as a return value of any online CPU. And doesn't matter at all with > ->setpolicy or ->target. I agree that returning 0 from ->get() is not a good idea, but that happened already before your commit and you broke working code. Also it doesn't make sense to update policy->cur before calling cpufreq_set_policy() for ->setpolicy drivers, because they don't need that. And that's what my patch is about. -- 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
