On 12 July 2013 03:45, Srivatsa S. Bhat <srivatsa.b...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > The call to cpufreq_update_policy() is placed in the CPU hotplug callback > of cpufreq_stats, which has a higher priority than the CPU hotplug callback > of cpufreq-core. As a result, during CPU_ONLINE/CPU_ONLINE_FROZEN, we end up > calling cpufreq_update_policy() *before* calling cpufreq_add_dev() ! > And for uninitialized CPUs, it just returns silently, not doing anything.
Hmm.. > To add to it, cpufreq_stats is not even the right place to call > cpufreq_update_policy() to begin with. The cpufreq core ought to handle > this in its own callback, from an elegance/relevance perspective. > > So move the invocation of cpufreq_update_policy() to cpufreq_cpu_callback, > and place it *after* cpufreq_add_dev(). > > Signed-off-by: Srivatsa S. Bhat <srivatsa.b...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > --- > > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 1 + > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_stats.c | 6 ------ > 2 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 6 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > index ccc6eab..f8c3100 100644 > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > @@ -1943,6 +1943,7 @@ static int __cpuinit cpufreq_cpu_callback(struct > notifier_block *nfb, > case CPU_ONLINE: > case CPU_ONLINE_FROZEN: > cpufreq_add_dev(dev, NULL); > + cpufreq_update_policy(cpu); Do we need to call this for every hotplug of cpu? I am not talking about suspend/resume here. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
