lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [May]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH V2] cpufreq: reinitialize new policy min/max when writing scaling_(max|min)_freq
From
Date


在 2018/5/29 18:26, Viresh Kumar 写道:
> On 26-05-18, 15:16, Kevin Wangtao wrote:
>> consider such situation, current user_policy.min is 1000000,
>> current user_policy.max is 1200000, in cpufreq_set_policy,
>> other driver may update policy.min to 1200000, policy.max to
>> 1300000. After that, If we input "echo 1300000 > scaling_min_freq",
>> then user_policy.min will be 1300000, and user_policy.max is
>> still 1200000, because the input value is checked with policy.max
>> not user_policy.max. if we get all related cpus offline and
>> online again, it will cause cpufreq_init_policy fail because
>> user_policy.min is higher than user_policy.max.
>>
>> The solution is when user space tries to write scaling_(max|min)_freq,
>> the min/max of new_policy should be reinitialized with min/max
>> of user_policy, like what cpufreq_update_policy does.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Kevin Wangtao <kevin.wangtao@hisilicon.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 2 ++
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
>> index b79c532..82123a1 100644
>> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
>> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
>> @@ -697,6 +697,8 @@ static ssize_t store_##file_name \
>> struct cpufreq_policy new_policy; \
>> \
>> memcpy(&new_policy, policy, sizeof(*policy)); \
>
> Maybe add a comment here on why this is required ?
OK
>
>> + new_policy.min = policy->user_policy.min; \
>> + new_policy.max = policy->user_policy.max; \
>> \
>> ret = sscanf(buf, "%u", &new_policy.object); \
>> if (ret != 1) \
>
> Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-05-30 10:04    [W:1.414 / U:0.032 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site