On Monday, February 17, 2014 10:45:41 AM Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 17 February 2014 05:51, Rafael J. Wysocki <r...@rjwysocki.net> wrote: > > On Friday, February 14, 2014 04:30:41 PM Viresh Kumar wrote: > >> cpufreq_update_policy() is called from two places currently. From a > >> workqueue > >> handled queued from cpufreq_bp_resume() for boot CPU and from > >> cpufreq_cpu_callback() whenever a CPU is added. > >> > >> The first one makes sure that boot CPU is running on the frequency present > >> in > >> policy->cpu. But we don't really need a call from cpufreq_cpu_callback(), > >> because we always call cpufreq_driver->init() (which will set policy->cur > >> correctly) whenever first CPU of any policy is added back. And so every > >> policy > >> structure is guaranteed to have the right frequency in policy->cur. > > > > That sounds good, but doing the extra cpufreq_update_policy() shouldn't > > actually > > hurt, should it? > > Yeah, it shouldn't hurt badly.. > > > So, that would be a cleanup rather than a fix, right? > > Hmm, yeah..
I've queued this up for 3.15, then. Thanks! -- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center. -- 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/
