Currently we are simply returning from target() if we encounter some error after broadcasting CPUFREQ_PRECHANGE notifier. Which looks to be wrong as others might depend on POSTCHANGE notifier for their functioning.

So, better broadcast CPUFREQ_POSTCHANGE notifier for these failure cases too, but with old frequency.

Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar viresh.kumar@linaro.org --- drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-cpu0.c | 13 ++++++++----- 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-cpu0.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-cpu0.c index 1cab820..6561853 100644 --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-cpu0.c +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-cpu0.c @@ -74,7 +74,9 @@ static int cpu0_set_target(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, if (IS_ERR(opp)) { rcu_read_unlock(); pr_err("failed to find OPP for %ld\n", freq_Hz); - return PTR_ERR(opp); + freqs.new = freqs.old; + ret = PTR_ERR(opp); + goto post_notify; } volt = opp_get_voltage(opp); rcu_read_unlock(); @@ -92,7 +94,7 @@ static int cpu0_set_target(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, if (ret) { pr_err("failed to scale voltage up: %d\n", ret); freqs.new = freqs.old; - return ret; + goto post_notify; } }

@@ -101,7 +103,8 @@ static int cpu0_set_target(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, pr_err("failed to set clock rate: %d\n", ret); if (cpu_reg) regulator_set_voltage_tol(cpu_reg, volt_old, tol); - return ret; + freqs.new = freqs.old; + goto post_notify; }

/* scaling down? scale voltage after frequency */ @@ -111,13 +114,13 @@ static int cpu0_set_target(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, pr_err("failed to scale voltage down: %d\n", ret); clk_set_rate(cpu_clk, freqs.old * 1000); freqs.new = freqs.old; - return ret; } }

+post_notify: cpufreq_notify_transition(policy, &freqs, CPUFREQ_POSTCHANGE);

- return 0; + return ret; }

static int cpu0_cpufreq_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)