@@ -210,7 +210,7 @@ static void exynos_enable_dvfs(unsigned int cur_frequency)
static int exynos_target(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, unsigned int index)
{
- unsigned int tmp;
+ unsigned int tmp, rindex;
int i;
mutex_lock(&cpufreq_lock);
@@ -218,13 +218,19 @@ static int exynos_target(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, unsigned int index)
freqs.old = policy->cur;
freqs.new = policy->freq_table[index].frequency;
+ /*
+ * policy->freq_table may be sorted differently, get the index value we
+ * are concerned about.
+ */
+ rindex = policy->freq_table[index].driver_data;
+
cpufreq_freq_transition_begin(policy, &freqs);
/* Set the target frequency in all C0_3_PSTATE register */
for_each_cpu(i, policy->cpus) {
tmp = __raw_readl(dvfs_info->base + XMU_C0_3_PSTATE + i * 4);
tmp &= ~(P_VALUE_MASK << C0_3_PSTATE_NEW_SHIFT);
- tmp |= (index << C0_3_PSTATE_NEW_SHIFT);
+ tmp |= (rindex << C0_3_PSTATE_NEW_SHIFT);
__raw_writel(tmp, dvfs_info->base + XMU_C0_3_PSTATE + i * 4);
}
Later patches would make changes in cpufreq core, after which policy->freq_table may be reordered by cpufreq core and it wouldn't be safe anymore to use 'index' for any other local arrays. To prepare for that, use policy->freq_table[index].driver_data for other driver specific usage of 'index'. The 'driver_data' fields are already set properly by the driver. Cc: Kukjin Kim <kgene@kernel.org> Cc: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> --- drivers/cpufreq/exynos5440-cpufreq.c | 10 ++++++++-- 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)