On Friday, February 14, 2014 04:30:41 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
cpufreq_update_policy() is called from two places currently. From a workqueue handled queued from cpufreq_bp_resume() for boot CPU and from cpufreq_cpu_callback() whenever a CPU is added.
The first one makes sure that boot CPU is running on the frequency present in policy->cpu. But we don't really need a call from cpufreq_cpu_callback(), because we always call cpufreq_driver->init() (which will set policy->cur correctly) whenever first CPU of any policy is added back. And so every policy structure is guaranteed to have the right frequency in policy->cur.
That sounds good, but doing the extra cpufreq_update_policy() shouldn't actually hurt, should it?
So, that would be a cleanup rather than a fix, right?
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar viresh.kumar@linaro.org
drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 1 - 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c index 383362b..b6eb4ed 100644 --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c @@ -2194,7 +2194,6 @@ static int cpufreq_cpu_callback(struct notifier_block *nfb, switch (action & ~CPU_TASKS_FROZEN) { case CPU_ONLINE: __cpufreq_add_dev(dev, NULL, frozen);
cpufreq_update_policy(cpu); break;case CPU_DOWN_PREPARE: