[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191018082551.zz7hazgodwgzaas3@vireshk-i7>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2019 13:55:51 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: flush any pending policy update work scheduled
before freeing
On 18-10-19, 10:19, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 10:03 AM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org> wrote:
> >
> > On 18-10-19, 09:32, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > Well, the policy is going away, so the governor has been stopped for
> > > it already. Even if the limit is updated, it will not be used anyway,
> > > so why bother with updating it?
> >
> > The hardware will be programmed to run on that frequency before the
> > policy exits,
>
> How exactly?
>
> The policy is inactive, so refresh_frequency_limits() won't even run
> cpufreq_set_policy() for it.
Ahh, yes. We won't change the frequency, this is all useless in that
case.
--
viresh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists