Messages in this thread | | | From | "Rafael J. Wysocki" <> | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH] cpufreq: cpufreq-cpu0: do not allow transitions with regulators suspended | Date | Thu, 14 Nov 2013 23:00:21 +0100 |
| |
On Thursday, November 14, 2013 06:55:05 AM viresh kumar wrote: > On Wednesday 13 November 2013 08:46 PM, Nishanth Menon wrote: > > arrgh, my bad.. Apologies for the bad one.. I missed it :( Does the following > > look equivalent? > > yes. > > > With this, I now see: > > > [ 43.212714] cpufreq: cpufreq_add_policy_cpu: Failed to stop governor > > ^^^ ?? > > Ahh, I missed this part. I thought it will fail at some other place where there > is no error checking :), but that's not true. > > Following should fix it for you and looks to be the right way as well. > > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > index dc67fa0..30b09d3 100644 > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > @@ -1530,6 +1530,14 @@ static void cpufreq_bp_resume(void) > } > } > > + if (has_target()) { > + if ((ret = __cpufreq_governor(policy, CPUFREQ_GOV_START)) || > + (ret = __cpufreq_governor(policy, CPUFREQ_GOV_LIMITS))) {
I'm not going to apply anything like this. If I have already, that's been a mistake.
Do not mix assignments with logical operators in such outrageous ways, please. That's completely unreadable and confusing.
What about:
ret = __cpufreq_governor(policy, CPUFREQ_GOV_START); if (!ret) { ret = __cpufreq_governor(policy, CPUFREQ_GOV_LIMITS); if (ret) {
> + pr_err("%s: Failed to start governor\n", __func__); > + goto fail; > + } > + } > + > schedule_work(&policy->update); > > fail:
Thanks!
-- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
| |