[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2016 21:11:20 +0200
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
stable@...r.kernel.org,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Subject: [PATCH 4.6 57/96] cpufreq: Avoid false-positive WARN_ON()s in cpufreq_update_policy()
4.6-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
------------------
From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
commit 742c87bf27d3b715820da6f8a81d6357adbf18f8 upstream.
CPU notifications from the firmware coming in when cpufreq is
suspended cause cpufreq_update_current_freq() to return 0 which
triggers the WARN_ON() in cpufreq_update_policy() for no reason.
Avoid that by checking cpufreq_suspended before calling
cpufreq_update_current_freq().
Fixes: c9d9c929e674 (cpufreq: Abort cpufreq_update_current_freq() for cpufreq_suspended set)
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
---
drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 4 ++++
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
@@ -2169,6 +2169,10 @@ int cpufreq_update_policy(unsigned int c
* -> ask driver for current freq and notify governors about a change
*/
if (cpufreq_driver->get && !cpufreq_driver->setpolicy) {
+ if (cpufreq_suspended) {
+ ret = -EAGAIN;
+ goto unlock;
+ }
new_policy.cur = cpufreq_update_current_freq(policy);
if (WARN_ON(!new_policy.cur)) {
ret = -EIO;
Powered by blists - more mailing lists