Hi Viresh,
On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 6:27 PM, Viresh Kumar viresh.kumar@linaro.org wrote:
On 01-07-15, 12:13, Pi-Cheng Chen wrote:
Sorry for the mistake I made when cherry-picking the patch. Fix and resend again.
You really want above to show up in git logs ?
Any comments like this should be present:
- in cover-letter
- OR after the three dashes below ---
- OR must be followed with a scissors line, like this: --------------8<--------
Thanks for the lesson. :)
__cpufreq_cooling_register() might fail if some CPU other than first one in clip_cpu mask is present earlier e.g. CPU hotplug. Iterate all CPUs in the mask to handle this case.
Signed-off-by: Pi-Cheng Chen pi-cheng.chen@linaro.org
drivers/thermal/cpu_cooling.c | 9 +++++++-- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/thermal/cpu_cooling.c b/drivers/thermal/cpu_cooling.c index 6509c61..5e90eb6 100644 --- a/drivers/thermal/cpu_cooling.c +++ b/drivers/thermal/cpu_cooling.c @@ -776,9 +776,14 @@ __cpufreq_cooling_register(struct device_node *np, char dev_name[THERMAL_NAME_LENGTH]; struct cpufreq_frequency_table *pos, *table; unsigned int freq, i, num_cpus;
int ret;
int ret, cpu;for_each_cpu(cpu, clip_cpus) {table = cpufreq_frequency_get_table(cpu);if (table)break;}
table = cpufreq_frequency_get_table(cpumask_first(clip_cpus));Nah, that's wrong. I hope that's a hypothetical problem and not a real one. Would have been better if cpufreq maintainers were cc'd as they can provide more insight into this :)
cpufreq_frequency_get_table() does: policy->freq_table and so it doesn't matter if the cpu is online or not.
cpufreq_cpu_data was getting unset earlier on hotplug, but that's not the case anymore. So nothing to worry about :)
Yes. This is based on the case before 4.2-rc1 which policy of cpu will be destroy after all cpus in a cluster are unplugged (right?). Since it is not the case anymore now, this patch is not needed at all. Thanks.
Best Regards, Pi-Cheng
-- viresh