Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Fri, 08 Feb 2013 16:08:49 -0800 | From | Dirk Brandewie <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/4] CPUFreq Fixes for 3.9 |
| |
On 02/08/2013 03:56 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Friday, February 08, 2013 09:02:37 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> On Friday, February 08, 2013 08:06:52 PM Viresh Kumar wrote: >>> On 8 February 2013 18:02, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote: >>>> So as I said, please rework the fixes on top of linux-pm.git/pm-cpufreq. >>> >>> I already did. Please check for-rafael branch >> >> Cool. This is the one I'm supposed to apply, then? > > OK, applied to bleeding-edge. Hopefully it will be build-tested over the > weekend and I can move it to linux-next. > > I dropped the rwlock/RCU patches from Nathan, though, because I had some > doubts about the correctness of the RCU one and the rwlock one alone would > conflict with your further changes.
One piece of fallout from dropping Nathan patches I had rebased mine on top of them.
This fixes the breakage do you want me to spin my patches or send this separately?:
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c index 0ebdf8c..a008b8e 100644 --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c @@ -1024,7 +1024,7 @@ static int __cpufreq_remove_dev(struct device *dev, struct __cpufreq_governor(data, CPUFREQ_GOV_STOP);
#ifdef CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU - if (!driver->setpolicy) + if (!cpufreq_driver->setpolicy) strncpy(per_cpu(cpufreq_cpu_governor, cpu), data->governor->name, CPUFREQ_NAME_LEN); #endif @@ -1771,7 +1771,7 @@ int cpufreq_update_policy(unsigned int cpu) pr_debug("Driver did not initialize current freq"); data->cur = policy.cur; } else { - if (data->cur != policy.cur && driver->target) + if (data->cur != policy.cur && cpufreq_driver->target) cpufreq_out_of_sync(cpu, data->cur, policy.cur); }
| |