On Friday, July 20, 2012, MyungJoo Ham wrote:
> From: Jonghwa Lee <jonghwa3....@samsung.com>
>
> The policy might have been changed since last call of target().
> Thus, using cpufreq_frequency_table_target(), which depends on
> policy to find the corresponding index from a frequency, may return
> inconsistent index for freqs.old. Thus, old_index should be
> calculated not based on the current policy.
>
> We have been observing such issue when scaling_min/max_freq were
> updated and sometimes cuased system lockups deu to incorrectly
> configured voltages.
>
> Signed-off-by: MyungJoo Ham <myungjoo....@samsung.com>
Applied to the pm-cpufreq branch of the linux-pm.git tree, will be pushed
for v3.6.
Thanks,
Rafael
> ---
> drivers/cpufreq/exynos-cpufreq.c | 14 ++++++++++++--
> 1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/exynos-cpufreq.c
> b/drivers/cpufreq/exynos-cpufreq.c
> index b243a7e..af2d81e 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/exynos-cpufreq.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/exynos-cpufreq.c
> @@ -62,8 +62,18 @@ static int exynos_target(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
> goto out;
> }
>
> - if (cpufreq_frequency_table_target(policy, freq_table,
> - freqs.old, relation, &old_index)) {
> + /*
> + * The policy max have been changed so that we cannot get proper
> + * old_index with cpufreq_frequency_table_target(). Thus, ignore
> + * policy and get the index from the raw freqeuncy table.
> + */
> + for (old_index = 0;
> + freq_table[old_index].frequency != CPUFREQ_TABLE_END;
> + old_index++)
> + if (freq_table[old_index].frequency == freqs.old)
> + break;
> +
> + if (freq_table[old_index].frequency == CPUFREQ_TABLE_END) {
> ret = -EINVAL;
> goto out;
> }
>
--
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/
