[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKohpo=y4KiTrTxvacyN7cbuaOJBXa-hyg+kmyV7V-0nCRZkkg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 11:22:40 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: Saravana Kannan <skannan@...eaurora.org>
Cc: "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Todd Poynor <toddpoynor@...gle.com>,
"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] cpufreq: Don't destroy/realloc policy/sysfs on hotplug/suspend
On 15 July 2014 11:06, Saravana Kannan <skannan@...eaurora.org> 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-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