On 12 March 2014 00:07, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> So Patrik, please test this one (resending, so that it gets to linux-pm):
Will do. Might take a couple of days.
cpufreq_quick_get() caught my eye when applying the patch. "This is
the last known freq, without actually getting it from the driver."
doesn't make sense since it is calling the driver. And shouldn't it
get the frequency from the policy when possible?
@@ -1484,7 +1484,7 @@ unsigned int cpufreq_quick_get(unsigned int cpu)
struct cpufreq_policy *policy;
unsigned int ret_freq = 0;
- if (cpufreq_driver && cpufreq_driver->setpolicy && cpufreq_driver->get)
+ if (cpufreq_driver && !cpufreq_driver->setpolicy && cpufreq_driver->get)
return cpufreq_driver->get(cpu);
policy = cpufreq_cpu_get(cpu);
> ---
> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> Index: linux-pm/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> +++ linux-pm/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> @@ -1137,7 +1137,7 @@ static int __cpufreq_add_dev(struct devi
> per_cpu(cpufreq_cpu_data, j) = policy;
> write_unlock_irqrestore(&cpufreq_driver_lock, flags);
>
> - if (cpufreq_driver->get) {
> + if (cpufreq_driver->get && !cpufreq_driver->setpolicy) {
> policy->cur = cpufreq_driver->get(policy->cpu);
> if (!policy->cur) {
> pr_err("%s: ->get() failed\n", __func__);
> @@ -2150,7 +2150,7 @@ int cpufreq_update_policy(unsigned int c
> * BIOS might change freq behind our back
> * -> ask driver for current freq and notify governors about a change
> */
> - if (cpufreq_driver->get) {
> + if (cpufreq_driver->get && !cpufreq_driver->setpolicy) {
> new_policy.cur = cpufreq_driver->get(cpu);
> if (WARN_ON(!new_policy.cur)) {
> ret = -EIO;
>
--
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
