On Sat, Sep 02, 2017 at 07:52:37AM +0800, Jeffy Chen wrote: > Currently we are using edev->dev drvdata to get rk3399-dmc data, but > it would be inited to edev in devfreq_event_add_edev. > > So we need to clear the edev->dev drvdata before enabling dfi, to > prevent dfi from getting the wrong rk3399-dmc data when the irq > triggered too early.
Your description doesn't match your code. You say you're clearing evdev->dev driver data but... > Signed-off-by: Jeffy Chen <jeffy.c...@rock-chips.com> > --- > > drivers/devfreq/rk3399_dmc.c | 1 + > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/devfreq/rk3399_dmc.c b/drivers/devfreq/rk3399_dmc.c > index 1b89ebbad02c..12f9f03f349f 100644 > --- a/drivers/devfreq/rk3399_dmc.c > +++ b/drivers/devfreq/rk3399_dmc.c > @@ -429,6 +429,7 @@ static int rk3399_dmcfreq_probe(struct platform_device > *pdev) > > rk3399_devfreq_dmc_profile.initial_freq = data->rate; > > + platform_set_drvdata(pdev, NULL); ...here you're only clearing the drvdata for the platform device. Is that a mistake? (Hint: that's not what you uploaded on the Chromium OS instance, where you presumably tested this.) And if you're really trying to do what your commit message says: We're having two different files fight over who owns the edev drvdata? That seems like a big no-no. We should work out who's the real owner of 'drvdata', and find some other solution for the others. Brian > data->devfreq = devm_devfreq_add_device(dev, > &rk3399_devfreq_dmc_profile, > "simple_ondemand", > -- > 2.11.0 > >
