[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160407042820.GA14903@vireshk-i7>
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 09:58:20 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Cc: Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: Skip all governor-related actions for
cpufreq_suspended set
On 07-04-16, 03:29, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
>
> Since governor operations are generally skipped if cpufreq_suspended
> is set, do nothing at all in cpufreq_start_governor() and
> cpufreq_exit_governor() in that case.
>
> In particular, this prevents fast frequency switching from being
> disabled after a suspend-to-RAM cycle on all CPUs except for the
> boot one.
static int cpufreq_governor(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, unsigned int event)
{
int ret;
/* Don't start any governor operations if we are entering suspend */
if (cpufreq_suspended)
return 0;
...
}
Above already guarantees that we would start/stop governors. Why do we
need this change then ?
--
viresh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists