Messages in this thread | | | From | "Rafael J. Wysocki" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/2] cpufreq: don't call cpufreq_update_policy() on CPU addition | Date | Mon, 17 Feb 2014 01:21:47 +0100 |
| |
On Friday, February 14, 2014 04:30:41 PM Viresh Kumar wrote: > cpufreq_update_policy() is called from two places currently. From a workqueue > handled queued from cpufreq_bp_resume() for boot CPU and from > cpufreq_cpu_callback() whenever a CPU is added. > > The first one makes sure that boot CPU is running on the frequency present in > policy->cpu. But we don't really need a call from cpufreq_cpu_callback(), > because we always call cpufreq_driver->init() (which will set policy->cur > correctly) whenever first CPU of any policy is added back. And so every policy > structure is guaranteed to have the right frequency in policy->cur.
That sounds good, but doing the extra cpufreq_update_policy() shouldn't actually hurt, should it?
So, that would be a cleanup rather than a fix, right?
> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> > --- > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 1 - > 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > index 383362b..b6eb4ed 100644 > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > @@ -2194,7 +2194,6 @@ static int cpufreq_cpu_callback(struct notifier_block *nfb, > switch (action & ~CPU_TASKS_FROZEN) { > case CPU_ONLINE: > __cpufreq_add_dev(dev, NULL, frozen); > - cpufreq_update_policy(cpu); > break; > > case CPU_DOWN_PREPARE: >
-- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
| |