[lkml]   [2014]   [Feb]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
SubjectRe: [PATCH V5 0/7] cpufreq: suspend early/resume late: dpm_{suspend|resume}()
On 15 February 2014 05:33, Stephen Warren <> wrote:
> On 02/14/2014 03:23 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

>> Well, it would be good to verify which part, then.
> Patch 2/7 appears to stop that message from being printed during
> suspend, and perhaps reduce the number of times it's printed during
> resume. Patch 7/7 stops the message being printed at all.
> Looking at patch 7, I wonder if it's simply because tegra_target() was
> modified never to return -EBUSY, so the bug is still there, but it's
> just been hidden.

No, the bug is removed now. Its hidden in current linus/master :)

>>> Also, I sometimes see the following during resume. I saw it twice with
>>> Linus's tree, but then I did 10 more reboot+suspend+resume cycles and
>>> couldn't repro it, and I saw it once with Linus's tree plus this series
>>> applied, then couldn't reproduce it in 5 more tries.
> Oops. I screwed up my re-testing (tested on the wrong board, without
> cpufreq active:-/). The message below is reproducible 100% of the time
> with or without this series.

Somehow I missed it. Following will fix it, sending a separate patch for it as

diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
index 2dfbb7e..48315e0 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
@@ -1326,8 +1326,7 @@ static int __cpufreq_remove_dev_prepare(struct
device *dev,

if (cpu != policy->cpu) {
- if (!frozen)
- sysfs_remove_link(&dev->kobj, "cpufreq");
+ sysfs_remove_link(&dev->kobj, "cpufreq");
} else if (cpus > 1) {
new_cpu = cpufreq_nominate_new_policy_cpu(policy, cpu);
if (new_cpu >= 0) {

 \ /
  Last update: 2014-02-17 12:41    [W:0.065 / U:2.792 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site