On 17-01-19, 12:38, Taniya Das wrote:
> @@ -159,10 +170,18 @@ static int qcom_cpufreq_hw_cpu_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
> struct device *dev = &global_pdev->dev;
> struct of_phandle_args args;
> struct device_node *cpu_np;
> + struct device *cpu_dev;
> struct resource *res;
> void __iomem *base;
> int ret, index;
>
> + cpu_dev = get_cpu_device(policy->cpu);
> + if (!cpu_dev) {
> + pr_err("%s: failed to get cpu%d device\n", __func__,
> + policy->cpu);
> + return -ENODEV;
> + }
> +
> cpu_np = of_cpu_device_node_get(policy->cpu);
> if (!cpu_np)
> return -EINVAL;
> @@ -199,12 +218,18 @@ static int qcom_cpufreq_hw_cpu_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
>
> policy->driver_data = base + REG_PERF_STATE;
>
> - ret = qcom_cpufreq_hw_read_lut(dev, policy, base);
> + ret = qcom_cpufreq_hw_read_lut(policy, base);
I asked you to pass cpu_dev here instead of dev and you said okay in
the previous version of the patch. Didn't like it ?
--
viresh
