Hi Rafael,
__cpufreq_driver_target() must not pass target frequency beyond the limits of current policy.
Today most of cpufreq platform drivers are doing this check in their target routines. Why not move it to __cpufreq_driver_target().
I wanted to get your opinion on this before making changes in all driver files. That's why this is an RFC.
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar viresh.kumar@linaro.org --- drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 11 +++++++++-- 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c index f552d5f..59264f1 100644 --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c @@ -1470,12 +1470,19 @@ int __cpufreq_driver_target(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, unsigned int relation) { int retval = -EINVAL; + unsigned int old_target_freq = target_freq;
if (cpufreq_disabled()) return -ENODEV;
- pr_debug("target for CPU %u: %u kHz, relation %u\n", policy->cpu, - target_freq, relation); + /* Make sure that target_freq is within supported range */ + if (target_freq > policy->max) + target_freq = policy->max; + if (target_freq < policy->min) + target_freq = policy->min; + + pr_debug("target for CPU %u: %u kHz, relation %u, requested %u kHz\n", + policy->cpu, target_freq, relation, old_target_freq); if (cpu_online(policy->cpu) && cpufreq_driver->target) retval = cpufreq_driver->target(policy, target_freq, relation);