On 15 July 2014 11:06, Saravana Kannan <skannan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Btw, I tried to take a stab at removing any assumption in cpufreq code about > policy->cpu being ONLINE. There are 160 instances of those of with 23 are in > cpufreq.c > > So, even if we are sure cpufreq.c is fine, it's 137 other uses spread across > all the other files. I definitely don't want to try and fix those as part of > this patch. Way too risky and hard to get the test coverage it would need. > Even some of the acpi cpufreq drivers seem to be making this assumption. Hmm, yeah that would be an issue. So this is what you should do now: - Left policy->cpu as it is, i.e. updated only when policy->cpu goes down. - Just make sure sysfs nodes are untouched when any cpu goes down > Btw, I think v3 is done. I did some testing and it was fine. But made some > minor changes. Will test tomorrow to make sure I didn't break anything with > the minor changes and then send them out. Ok, just comply to the above comments. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
