diff mbox

[0/4] CPUFreq Fixes for 3.9

Message ID 51159391.2020002@gmail.com (mailing list archive)
State Not Applicable, archived
Headers show

Commit Message

dirk.brandewie@gmail.com Feb. 9, 2013, 12:08 a.m. UTC
On 02/08/2013 03:56 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Friday, February 08, 2013 09:02:37 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Friday, February 08, 2013 08:06:52 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
>>> On 8 February 2013 18:02, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote:
>>>> So as I said, please rework the fixes on top of linux-pm.git/pm-cpufreq.
>>>
>>> I already did. Please check for-rafael branch
>>
>> Cool.  This is the one I'm supposed to apply, then?
>
> OK, applied to bleeding-edge.  Hopefully it will be build-tested over the
> weekend and I can move it to linux-next.
>
> I dropped the rwlock/RCU patches from Nathan, though, because I had some
> doubts about the correctness of the RCU one and the rwlock one alone would
> conflict with your further changes.

One piece of fallout from dropping Nathan patches I had rebased mine on top of 
them.

This fixes the breakage do you want me to spin my patches or send this separately?:


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Comments

Rafael Wysocki Feb. 9, 2013, 12:21 a.m. UTC | #1
On Friday, February 08, 2013 04:08:49 PM Dirk Brandewie wrote:
> On 02/08/2013 03:56 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Friday, February 08, 2013 09:02:37 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >> On Friday, February 08, 2013 08:06:52 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> >>> On 8 February 2013 18:02, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote:
> >>>> So as I said, please rework the fixes on top of linux-pm.git/pm-cpufreq.
> >>>
> >>> I already did. Please check for-rafael branch
> >>
> >> Cool.  This is the one I'm supposed to apply, then?
> >
> > OK, applied to bleeding-edge.  Hopefully it will be build-tested over the
> > weekend and I can move it to linux-next.
> >
> > I dropped the rwlock/RCU patches from Nathan, though, because I had some
> > doubts about the correctness of the RCU one and the rwlock one alone would
> > conflict with your further changes.
> 
> One piece of fallout from dropping Nathan patches I had rebased mine on top of 
> them.
> 
> This fixes the breakage do you want me to spin my patches or send this separately?:

No need to, I'll try to fix that in my tree.

> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> index 0ebdf8c..a008b8e 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> @@ -1024,7 +1024,7 @@ static int __cpufreq_remove_dev(struct device *dev, struct
>                  __cpufreq_governor(data, CPUFREQ_GOV_STOP);
> 
>   #ifdef CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU
> -       if (!driver->setpolicy)
> +       if (!cpufreq_driver->setpolicy)
>                  strncpy(per_cpu(cpufreq_cpu_governor, cpu),
>                          data->governor->name, CPUFREQ_NAME_LEN);
>   #endif
> @@ -1771,7 +1771,7 @@ int cpufreq_update_policy(unsigned int cpu)
>                          pr_debug("Driver did not initialize current freq");
>                          data->cur = policy.cur;
>                  } else {
> -                       if (data->cur != policy.cur && driver->target)
> +                       if (data->cur != policy.cur && cpufreq_driver->target)
>                                  cpufreq_out_of_sync(cpu, data->cur,
>                                                                  policy.cur);
>                  }
> 

Thanks,
Rafael
Viresh Kumar Feb. 9, 2013, 2:10 a.m. UTC | #2
On 9 February 2013 05:38, Dirk Brandewie <dirk.brandewie@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 02/08/2013 03:56 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>
>> On Friday, February 08, 2013 09:02:37 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>>
>>> On Friday, February 08, 2013 08:06:52 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 8 February 2013 18:02, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> So as I said, please rework the fixes on top of
>>>>> linux-pm.git/pm-cpufreq.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I already did. Please check for-rafael branch
>>>
>>>
>>> Cool.  This is the one I'm supposed to apply, then?
>>
>>
>> OK, applied to bleeding-edge.  Hopefully it will be build-tested over the
>> weekend and I can move it to linux-next.
>>
>> I dropped the rwlock/RCU patches from Nathan, though, because I had some
>> doubts about the correctness of the RCU one and the rwlock one alone would
>> conflict with your further changes.

As soon as i read Rafael's mail, i realized Dirk's patch might be broken
and immediately i saw your mail :)

@Rafael: Sorry for not reviewing Nathan's patch well. I didn't knew much about
RCU then. I am going through its lwn articles now ;)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Rafael Wysocki Feb. 9, 2013, 11:44 a.m. UTC | #3
On Saturday, February 09, 2013 07:40:26 AM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 9 February 2013 05:38, Dirk Brandewie <dirk.brandewie@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 02/08/2013 03:56 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >>
> >> On Friday, February 08, 2013 09:02:37 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Friday, February 08, 2013 08:06:52 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On 8 February 2013 18:02, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So as I said, please rework the fixes on top of
> >>>>> linux-pm.git/pm-cpufreq.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I already did. Please check for-rafael branch
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Cool.  This is the one I'm supposed to apply, then?
> >>
> >>
> >> OK, applied to bleeding-edge.  Hopefully it will be build-tested over the
> >> weekend and I can move it to linux-next.
> >>
> >> I dropped the rwlock/RCU patches from Nathan, though, because I had some
> >> doubts about the correctness of the RCU one and the rwlock one alone would
> >> conflict with your further changes.
> 
> As soon as i read Rafael's mail, i realized Dirk's patch might be broken
> and immediately i saw your mail :)
> 
> @Rafael: Sorry for not reviewing Nathan's patch well. I didn't knew much about
> RCU then. I am going through its lwn articles now ;)

No biggie, I overlooked that myself first time.

Thanks,
Rafael
diff mbox

Patch

diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
index 0ebdf8c..a008b8e 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
@@ -1024,7 +1024,7 @@  static int __cpufreq_remove_dev(struct device *dev, struct
                 __cpufreq_governor(data, CPUFREQ_GOV_STOP);

  #ifdef CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU
-       if (!driver->setpolicy)
+       if (!cpufreq_driver->setpolicy)
                 strncpy(per_cpu(cpufreq_cpu_governor, cpu),
                         data->governor->name, CPUFREQ_NAME_LEN);
  #endif
@@ -1771,7 +1771,7 @@  int cpufreq_update_policy(unsigned int cpu)
                         pr_debug("Driver did not initialize current freq");
                         data->cur = policy.cur;
                 } else {
-                       if (data->cur != policy.cur && driver->target)
+                       if (data->cur != policy.cur && cpufreq_driver->target)
                                 cpufreq_out_of_sync(cpu, data->cur,
                                                                 policy.cur);
                 }