On 02-06-16, 19:02, Javi Merino wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 09:06:26PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > On 2 June 2016 at 20:29, Javi Merino <javi.mer...@arm.com> wrote:
> > > In 5a31d594a973 ("cpufreq: Allow freq_table to be obtained for offline
> > > CPUs") you did the opposite: don't use cpufreq_cpu_get_raw() because
> > > it won't give you the policy of a cpu that is offline. Now you are
> > > arguing that we should go back to cpufreq_cpu_get() which implicitly
> > > calls cpufreq_cpu_get_raw(). Won't we hit the same issue that
> > > 5a31d594a973 was trying to prevent: that we can't get a freq_table for
> > > a cpu that is offline?
> >
> > Yes, that should be fixed. Thanks for letting me know about it :)
>
> Ok, that was my only nit. Other than that, it looks good to me. For
> cpu_cooling.c
>
> Acked-by: Javi Merino <javi.mer...@arm.com>
Thanks, I will be adding this to the original patch.
diff --git a/drivers/thermal/cpu_cooling.c b/drivers/thermal/cpu_cooling.c
index 63f760869651..4d678cfc81b1 100644
--- a/drivers/thermal/cpu_cooling.c
+++ b/drivers/thermal/cpu_cooling.c
@@ -792,10 +792,12 @@ __cpufreq_cooling_register(struct device_node *np,
struct cpufreq_cooling_device *cpufreq_dev;
char dev_name[THERMAL_NAME_LENGTH];
struct cpufreq_frequency_table *pos, *table;
+ struct cpumask temp_mask;
unsigned int freq, i, num_cpus;
int ret;
- policy = cpufreq_cpu_get(cpumask_first(clip_cpus));
+ cpumask_and(&temp_mask, clip_cpus, cpu_online_mask);
+ policy = cpufreq_cpu_get(cpumask_first(&temp_mask));
if (!policy) {
pr_debug("%s: CPUFreq policy not found\n", __func__);
return ERR_PTR(-EPROBE_DEFER);
This will also make this problem clear, otherwise it was just hidden in the
function call which was really easy to miss, as I missed it as well :(
--
viresh
