On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 05:13:14AM +0100, Pi-Cheng Chen wrote:

Sorry for the mistake I made when cherry-picking the patch. Fix and resend again.

__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

Looks good to me. FWIW,

Acked-by: Javi Merino javi.merino@arm.com

---

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)); if (!table) { pr_debug("%s: CPUFreq table not found\n", __func__); return ERR_PTR(-EPROBE_DEFER);

-- 1.9.1

---

linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

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