| Message ID | 1378835989-19281-2-git-send-email-Sudeep.KarkadaNagesha@arm.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
Hi Sudeep On Tue, 10 Sep 2013, Sudeep KarkadaNagesha wrote: > From: Sudeep KarkadaNagesha <sudeep.karkadanagesha@arm.com> > > Commit f837a9b5ab05c52a07108c6f09ca66f2e0aee757 "cpufreq: cpufreq-cpu0: > remove device tree parsing for cpu nodes" assumed the pdev->dev is set to > cpu0 device in the platform code. But it actually points to the virtual > cpufreq-cpu0 platform device which is not present in the device tree. > Most of the information needed by cpufreq is stored in cpu0 DT node. > So cpu_dev must point to cpu0 device. > > This patch fixes the wrong assignment to cpu_dev. > > Reported-by: Guennadi Liakhovetski <g.liakhovetski@gmx.de> > Cc: Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@linaro.org> > Signed-off-by: Sudeep KarkadaNagesha <sudeep.karkadanagesha@arm.com> Thanks for your patches > --- > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-cpu0.c | 7 ++++++- > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-cpu0.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-cpu0.= > c > index cbfffa9..78c49d8 100644 > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-cpu0.c > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-cpu0.c > @@ -12,6 +12,7 @@ > #define pr_fmt(fmt)=09KBUILD_MODNAME ": " fmt > =20 Noone else seems to complain, but I don't think these =20, =09 etc. codes have been invented on my side and I don't think they belong here. I'm handling enough mails / patches daily to believe, that my mail system isn't the cause of this. Could you please verify and regenerate and resend? Unless I'm mistaken this looks like a corruption on your SMTP side. Thanks Guennadi > #include <linux/clk.h> > +#include <linux/cpu.h> > #include <linux/cpufreq.h> > #include <linux/err.h> > #include <linux/module.h> > @@ -177,7 +178,11 @@ static int cpu0_cpufreq_probe(struct platform_device *= > pdev) > =09struct device_node *np; > =09int ret; > =20 > -=09cpu_dev =3D &pdev->dev; > +=09cpu_dev =3D get_cpu_device(0); > +=09if (!cpu_dev) { > +=09=09pr_err("failed to get cpu0 device\n"); > +=09=09return -ENODEV; > +=09} > =20 > =09np =3D of_node_get(cpu_dev->of_node); > =09if (!np) { > --=20 > 1.8.1.2 > > --- Guennadi Liakhovetski, Ph.D. Freelance Open-Source Software Developer http://www.open-technology.de/
On 11 September 2013 13:45, Guennadi Liakhovetski <g.liakhovetski@gmx.de> wrote: > Noone else seems to complain, but I don't think these =20, =09 etc. codes > have been invented on my side and I don't think they belong here. I'm > handling enough mails / patches daily to believe, that my mail system > isn't the cause of this. Could you please verify and regenerate and > resend? Unless I'm mistaken this looks like a corruption on your SMTP > side. Its on Sudeep's side :) .. Or on ARM's side.. Don't know why nobody else complained, Atleast people who test these patches (Like Shawn), must have applied them from mail.. Don't know why they aren't shouting :) He mostly send pull requests to Rafael and so this wasn't a issue for Rafael :)
On 11/09/13 09:42, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 11 September 2013 13:45, Guennadi Liakhovetski <g.liakhovetski@gmx.de> wrote: >> Noone else seems to complain, but I don't think these =20, =09 etc. codes >> have been invented on my side and I don't think they belong here. I'm >> handling enough mails / patches daily to believe, that my mail system >> isn't the cause of this. Could you please verify and regenerate and >> resend? Unless I'm mistaken this looks like a corruption on your SMTP >> side. > > Its on Sudeep's side :) .. Or on ARM's side.. > Don't know why nobody else complained, Atleast people who test these > patches (Like Shawn), must have applied them from mail.. Don't know > why they aren't shouting :) > > He mostly send pull requests to Rafael and so this wasn't a issue for > Rafael :) > Yes looks like its at my end. I will try to fix it. There is alternate SMTP which should not have this issue, but it was down recently. I forgot to switch back to it once it was fixed. For now you can fetch it from: git://linux-arm.org/linux-skn.git cpufreq_fixes_v3.12 Regards, Sudeep
On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 02:12:24PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 11 September 2013 13:45, Guennadi Liakhovetski <g.liakhovetski@gmx.de> wrote: > > Noone else seems to complain, but I don't think these =20, =09 etc. codes > > have been invented on my side and I don't think they belong here. I'm > > handling enough mails / patches daily to believe, that my mail system > > isn't the cause of this. Could you please verify and regenerate and > > resend? Unless I'm mistaken this looks like a corruption on your SMTP > > side. > > Its on Sudeep's side :) .. Or on ARM's side.. > Don't know why nobody else complained, Atleast people who test these > patches (Like Shawn), must have applied them from mail.. Don't know > why they aren't shouting :) I'm not sure what's going on here. But I did apply the patches from mail without any problem, and the patch I got look just like what the archive below [1] shows. Shawn [1] http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg272474.html
On Wednesday, September 11, 2013 02:12:24 PM Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 11 September 2013 13:45, Guennadi Liakhovetski <g.liakhovetski@gmx.de> wrote: > > Noone else seems to complain, but I don't think these =20, =09 etc. codes > > have been invented on my side and I don't think they belong here. I'm > > handling enough mails / patches daily to believe, that my mail system > > isn't the cause of this. Could you please verify and regenerate and > > resend? Unless I'm mistaken this looks like a corruption on your SMTP > > side. > > Its on Sudeep's side :) .. Or on ARM's side.. > Don't know why nobody else complained, Atleast people who test these > patches (Like Shawn), must have applied them from mail.. Don't know > why they aren't shouting :) This looks like broken quoted-printable e-mail encoding somewhere (either on the sending or on the receiving end). > He mostly send pull requests to Rafael and so this wasn't a issue for > Rafael :) Git pulls are, well, from git, so e-mail encoding doesn't have anything to do with them ...
On Tue, 10 Sep 2013, Sudeep KarkadaNagesha wrote: > From: Sudeep KarkadaNagesha <sudeep.karkadanagesha@arm.com> > > Commit f837a9b5ab05c52a07108c6f09ca66f2e0aee757 "cpufreq: cpufreq-cpu0: > remove device tree parsing for cpu nodes" assumed the pdev->dev is set to > cpu0 device in the platform code. But it actually points to the virtual > cpufreq-cpu0 platform device which is not present in the device tree. > Most of the information needed by cpufreq is stored in cpu0 DT node. > So cpu_dev must point to cpu0 device. > > This patch fixes the wrong assignment to cpu_dev. > > Reported-by: Guennadi Liakhovetski <g.liakhovetski@gmx.de> > Cc: Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@linaro.org> > Signed-off-by: Sudeep KarkadaNagesha <sudeep.karkadanagesha@arm.com> Tested-by: Guennadi Liakhovetski <g.liakhovetski+renesas@gmail.com> Thanks Guennadi > --- > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-cpu0.c | 7 ++++++- > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-cpu0.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-cpu0.= > c > index cbfffa9..78c49d8 100644 > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-cpu0.c > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-cpu0.c > @@ -12,6 +12,7 @@ > #define pr_fmt(fmt)=09KBUILD_MODNAME ": " fmt > =20 > #include <linux/clk.h> > +#include <linux/cpu.h> > #include <linux/cpufreq.h> > #include <linux/err.h> > #include <linux/module.h> > @@ -177,7 +178,11 @@ static int cpu0_cpufreq_probe(struct platform_device *= > pdev) > =09struct device_node *np; > =09int ret; > =20 > -=09cpu_dev =3D &pdev->dev; > +=09cpu_dev =3D get_cpu_device(0); > +=09if (!cpu_dev) { > +=09=09pr_err("failed to get cpu0 device\n"); > +=09=09return -ENODEV; > +=09} > =20 > =09np =3D of_node_get(cpu_dev->of_node); > =09if (!np) { > --=20 > 1.8.1.2 > > --- Guennadi Liakhovetski, Ph.D. Freelance Open-Source Software Developer http://www.open-technology.de/
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-cpu0.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-cpu0.c index cbfffa9..78c49d8 100644 --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-cpu0.c +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-cpu0.c @@ -12,6 +12,7 @@ #define pr_fmt(fmt) KBUILD_MODNAME ": " fmt #include <linux/clk.h> +#include <linux/cpu.h> #include <linux/cpufreq.h> #include <linux/err.h> #include <linux/module.h> @@ -177,7 +178,11 @@ static int cpu0_cpufreq_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) struct device_node *np; int ret; - cpu_dev = &pdev->dev; + cpu_dev = get_cpu_device(0); + if (!cpu_dev) { + pr_err("failed to get cpu0 device\n"); + return -ENODEV; + } np = of_node_get(cpu_dev->of_node); if (!np) {