[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <8f2fc4d6240b567fdb69a0b47f073d174b7ef9b2.1392375504.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 16:30:41 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: rjw@...ysocki.net
Cc: linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org, cpufreq@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
pierre-list@...man.eu, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Subject: [PATCH 2/2] cpufreq: don't call cpufreq_update_policy() on CPU addition
cpufreq_update_policy() is called from two places currently. From a workqueue
handled queued from cpufreq_bp_resume() for boot CPU and from
cpufreq_cpu_callback() whenever a CPU is added.
The first one makes sure that boot CPU is running on the frequency present in
policy->cpu. But we don't really need a call from cpufreq_cpu_callback(),
because we always call cpufreq_driver->init() (which will set policy->cur
correctly) whenever first CPU of any policy is added back. And so every policy
structure is guaranteed to have the right frequency in policy->cur.
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
---
drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 1 -
1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
index 383362b..b6eb4ed 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
@@ -2194,7 +2194,6 @@ static int cpufreq_cpu_callback(struct notifier_block *nfb,
switch (action & ~CPU_TASKS_FROZEN) {
case CPU_ONLINE:
__cpufreq_add_dev(dev, NULL, frozen);
- cpufreq_update_policy(cpu);
break;
case CPU_DOWN_PREPARE:
--
1.7.12.rc2.18.g61b472e
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists