| Message ID | 085013f4e584e3fef97187bcb349c3fa76942e19.1378012620.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted, archived |
| Headers | show |
On 1 September 2013 10:56, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote: > Its better if we can get these in for 3.11, otherwise we need to get them in the > stable tree.. They can't get into 3.11 due to two reasons.. - I haven't tested them over 3.11 but linux-next/master. - Few more dependency patches might also be required for 3.11.. So get them into 3.12-rc1 if they look okay to you :) -- 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
On Sunday, September 01, 2013 10:56:01 AM Viresh Kumar wrote: > __cpufreq_governor() returns with -EBUSY when governor is already stopped and we > try to stop it again, but when it is stopped we must not allow calls to > CPUFREQ_GOV_LIMITS event as well. > > This patch adds this check in __cpufreq_governor(). > > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> > --- > Hi Rafael, > > Its better if we can get these in for 3.11, otherwise we need to get them in the > stable tree.. There's no way they could go into 3.11 or even 3.12 without speding time in linux-next. I'll queue them up for the second part of the 3.12 merge window, unless there is 3.11-rc8 (which I doubt will happen). > Anyway, we will get these in 3.10 stable tree but that requires us to identify > few more patches that will go with these. I will do that later. > > This must fix the issues reported by Stephen. > > Tested on my thinkpad over your linux-next branch. > > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 5 +++-- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > index 5c75e31..f320a20 100644 > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > @@ -1692,8 +1692,9 @@ static int __cpufreq_governor(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, > policy->cpu, event); > > mutex_lock(&cpufreq_governor_lock); > - if ((!policy->governor_enabled && (event == CPUFREQ_GOV_STOP)) || > - (policy->governor_enabled && (event == CPUFREQ_GOV_START))) { > + if ((policy->governor_enabled && (event == CPUFREQ_GOV_START)) || > + (!policy->governor_enabled && ((event == CPUFREQ_GOV_LIMITS) || > + (event == CPUFREQ_GOV_STOP)))) { Broken white space, but never mind. > mutex_unlock(&cpufreq_governor_lock); > return -EBUSY; > } Thanks, Rafael -- 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
On Sunday, September 01, 2013 11:56:09 AM Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 1 September 2013 10:56, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote: > > Its better if we can get these in for 3.11, otherwise we need to get them in the > > stable tree.. > > They can't get into 3.11 due to two reasons.. > - I haven't tested them over 3.11 but linux-next/master. > - Few more dependency patches might also be required for 3.11.. > > So get them into 3.12-rc1 if they look okay to you :) I'm going to do that, but please add explanation to the [2/2] changelog. Thanks!
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c index 5c75e31..f320a20 100644 --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c @@ -1692,8 +1692,9 @@ static int __cpufreq_governor(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, policy->cpu, event); mutex_lock(&cpufreq_governor_lock); - if ((!policy->governor_enabled && (event == CPUFREQ_GOV_STOP)) || - (policy->governor_enabled && (event == CPUFREQ_GOV_START))) { + if ((policy->governor_enabled && (event == CPUFREQ_GOV_START)) || + (!policy->governor_enabled && ((event == CPUFREQ_GOV_LIMITS) || + (event == CPUFREQ_GOV_STOP)))) { mutex_unlock(&cpufreq_governor_lock); return -EBUSY; }
__cpufreq_governor() returns with -EBUSY when governor is already stopped and we try to stop it again, but when it is stopped we must not allow calls to CPUFREQ_GOV_LIMITS event as well. This patch adds this check in __cpufreq_governor(). Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> --- Hi Rafael, Its better if we can get these in for 3.11, otherwise we need to get them in the stable tree.. Anyway, we will get these in 3.10 stable tree but that requires us to identify few more patches that will go with these. I will do that later. This must fix the issues reported by Stephen. Tested on my thinkpad over your linux-next branch. drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 5 +++-- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)