[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1982548.ex0OEcQ4PI@aspire.rjw.lan>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2019 00:26:30 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
To: Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Subject: [PATCH 4/4] cpufreq: Pass updated policy to driver ->setpolicy() callback
From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
The invocation of the ->setpolicy() cpufreq driver callback should
be equivalent to calling cpufreq_governor_limits(policy) for drivers
with internal governors, but in fact it isn't so, because the
temporary new_policy object is passed to it instead of the updated
policy.
That is a bit confusing, so make cpufreq_set_policy() pass the
updated policy to the driver ->setpolicy() callback.
No intentional changes of behavior.
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
---
drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
Index: linux-pm/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
===================================================================
--- linux-pm.orig/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
+++ linux-pm/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
@@ -2286,7 +2286,7 @@ static int cpufreq_set_policy(struct cpu
if (cpufreq_driver->setpolicy) {
policy->policy = new_policy->policy;
pr_debug("setting range\n");
- return cpufreq_driver->setpolicy(new_policy);
+ return cpufreq_driver->setpolicy(policy);
}
if (new_policy->governor == policy->governor) {
Powered by blists - more mailing lists