On 09-09-16, 12:28, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 04:52:04PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > Thanks for testing it.. You need another patch from Rafael, which
> > should be in linux-next by now..
> >
> > commit 3689ad7ed6a8 ("cpufreq: Drop unnecessary check from
> > cpufreq_policy_alloc()")
> >
> > Both patches combined will fix the problem you were getting.
>
> Please send me this other patch. Seems absurd to fix a reported problem
> without copying appropriate patches to the reporter...
It got merged separately, and yes you should have been cc'd for that
as well.
Please find it attached now..
--
viresh
>From 3689ad7ed6a836c4eec5e7bdd17a11a79591bef9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
Message-Id: <3689ad7ed6a836c4eec5e7bdd17a11a79591bef9.1473420826.git.viresh.ku...@linaro.org>
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 03:11:31 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] cpufreq: Drop unnecessary check from cpufreq_policy_alloc()
Since cpufreq_policy_alloc() doesn't use its dev variable for
anything useful, drop that variable from there along with the
NULL check against it.
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <[email protected]>
---
drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 4 ----
1 file changed, 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
index 3dd4884c6f9e..13fb589b6d2c 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
@@ -1073,13 +1073,9 @@ static void handle_update(struct work_struct *work)
static struct cpufreq_policy *cpufreq_policy_alloc(unsigned int cpu)
{
- struct device *dev = get_cpu_device(cpu);
struct cpufreq_policy *policy;
int ret;
- if (WARN_ON(!dev))
- return NULL;
-
policy = kzalloc(sizeof(*policy), GFP_KERNEL);
if (!policy)
return NULL;
--
2.7.1.410.g6faf27b
