Messages in this thread Patch in this message |  | | Date | Mon, 17 Feb 2014 14:50:18 +0530 | Subject | Re: [PATCH V5 0/7] cpufreq: suspend early/resume late: dpm_{suspend|resume}() | From | Viresh Kumar <> |
| |
On 15 February 2014 05:33, Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org> 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 well:
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, up_read(&policy->rwsem);
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) {
|  |