Re: 2.6.12-rc3 cpufreq compile error on ppc32
Christoph Hellwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 25, 2005 at 10:20:39PM +0200, Colin Leroy wrote:
> > > > One of Ben's patches ("ppc32: Fix cpufreq problems") went in 2.6.12-
> > > > rc3, but it depended on another patch that's still in -mm only:
> > > > add-suspend-method-to-cpufreq-core.patch
> > > >
> > > > In addition to this, there's a third patch in -mm that fixes
> > > > warnings and line length to the previous patch, but it doesn't
> > > > apply cleanly anymore. It's named add-suspend-method-to-cpufreq-
> > > > core-warning-fix.patch
> > >
> > > Yup, please, Andrew, get those 2 to Linus.
> >
> > Just a heads-up : I didn't see these go into the git tree?
>
> still not in. Linus, can you please put in the patch below from benh?
>
>
> Index: linux-work/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
This patch is missing a warning fix. I'll send the correct one.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 2.6.12-rc3 cpufreq compile error on ppc32
On Mon, Apr 25, 2005 at 10:20:39PM +0200, Colin Leroy wrote:
> > > One of Ben's patches ("ppc32: Fix cpufreq problems") went in 2.6.12-
> > > rc3, but it depended on another patch that's still in -mm only:
> > > add-suspend-method-to-cpufreq-core.patch
> > >
> > > In addition to this, there's a third patch in -mm that fixes
> > > warnings and line length to the previous patch, but it doesn't
> > > apply cleanly anymore. It's named add-suspend-method-to-cpufreq-
> > > core-warning-fix.patch
> >
> > Yup, please, Andrew, get those 2 to Linus.
>
> Just a heads-up : I didn't see these go into the git tree?
still not in. Linus, can you please put in the patch below from benh?
Index: linux-work/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
===
--- linux-work.orig/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c 2005-03-30 09:42:18.0
+1000
+++ linux-work/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c2005-03-30 09:47:22.0
+1000
@@ -223,7 +223,7 @@
}
if ((val == CPUFREQ_PRECHANGE && ci->old < ci->new) ||
(val == CPUFREQ_POSTCHANGE && ci->old > ci->new) ||
- (val == CPUFREQ_RESUMECHANGE)) {
+ (val == CPUFREQ_RESUMECHANGE || val == CPUFREQ_SUSPENDCHANGE)) {
loops_per_jiffy = cpufreq_scale(l_p_j_ref, l_p_j_ref_freq,
ci->new);
dprintk("scaling loops_per_jiffy to %lu for frequency %u
kHz\n", loops_per_jiffy, ci->new);
}
@@ -866,16 +866,96 @@
/**
+ * cpufreq_suspend - let the low level driver prepare for suspend
+ */
+
+static int cpufreq_suspend(struct sys_device * sysdev, u32 state)
+{
+ int cpu = sysdev->id;
+ unsigned int ret = 0;
+ unsigned int cur_freq = 0;
+ struct cpufreq_policy *cpu_policy;
+
+ dprintk("resuming cpu %u\n", cpu);
+
+ if (!cpu_online(cpu))
+ return 0;
+
+ /* we may be lax here as interrupts are off. Nonetheless
+* we need to grab the correct cpu policy, as to check
+* whether we really run on this CPU.
+*/
+
+ cpu_policy = cpufreq_cpu_get(cpu);
+ if (!cpu_policy)
+ return -EINVAL;
+
+ /* only handle each CPU group once */
+ if (unlikely(cpu_policy->cpu != cpu)) {
+ cpufreq_cpu_put(cpu_policy);
+ return 0;
+ }
+
+ if (cpufreq_driver->suspend) {
+ ret = cpufreq_driver->suspend(cpu_policy, state);
+ if (ret) {
+ printk(KERN_ERR "cpufreq: suspend failed in ->suspend "
+ "step on CPU %u\n", cpu_policy->cpu);
+ cpufreq_cpu_put(cpu_policy);
+ return ret;
+ }
+ }
+
+
+ if (cpufreq_driver->flags & CPUFREQ_CONST_LOOPS)
+ goto out;
+
+ if (cpufreq_driver->get)
+ cur_freq = cpufreq_driver->get(cpu_policy->cpu);
+
+ if (!cur_freq || !cpu_policy->cur) {
+ printk(KERN_ERR "cpufreq: suspend failed to assert current "
+ "frequency is what timing core thinks it is.\n");
+ goto out;
+ }
+
+ if (unlikely(cur_freq != cpu_policy->cur)) {
+ struct cpufreq_freqs freqs;
+
+ if (!(cpufreq_driver->flags & CPUFREQ_PM_NO_WARN))
+ printk(KERN_DEBUG "Warning: CPU frequency is %u, "
+ "cpufreq assumed %u kHz.\n",
+ cur_freq, cpu_policy->cur);
+
+ freqs.cpu = cpu;
+ freqs.old = cpu_policy->cur;
+ freqs.new = cur_freq;
+
+ notifier_call_chain(&cpufreq_transition_notifier_list,
+ CPUFREQ_SUSPENDCHANGE, &freqs);
+ adjust_jiffies(CPUFREQ_SUSPENDCHANGE, &freqs);
+
+ cpu_policy->cur = cur_freq;
+ }
+
+ out:
+ cpufreq_cpu_put(cpu_policy);
+ return 0;
+}
+
+/**
* cpufreq_resume - restore proper CPU frequency handling after resume
*
* 1.) resume CPUfreq hardware support (cpufreq_driver->resume())
* 2.) if ->target and !CPUFREQ_CONST_LOOPS: verify we're in sync
- * 3.) schedule call cpufreq_update_policy() ASAP as interrupts are
restored.
+ * 3.) schedule call cpufreq_update_policy() ASAP as interrupts are
+ * restored.
*/
static int cpufreq_resume(struct sys_device * sysdev)
{
int cpu = sysdev->id;
unsigned int ret = 0;
+ unsigned int cur_freq = 0;
struct cpufreq_policy *cpu_policy;
dprintk("resuming cpu %u\n", cpu);
@@ -908,32 +988,34 @@
}
}
- if (!(cpufreq_driver->flags & CPUFREQ_CONST_LOOPS)) {
- unsigned int cur_freq = 0;
-
- if (cpufreq_driver->get)
- cur_freq = cpufreq_driver->get(cpu_policy->cpu);
-
- if (!cur_freq || !cpu_policy->cur) {
- printk(KERN_ERR
Re: 2.6.12-rc3 cpufreq compile error on ppc32
On 22 Apr 2005 at 10h04, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
Hi,
> >
> > One of Ben's patches ("ppc32: Fix cpufreq problems") went in 2.6.12-
> > rc3, but it depended on another patch that's still in -mm only:
> > add-suspend-method-to-cpufreq-core.patch
> >
> > In addition to this, there's a third patch in -mm that fixes
> > warnings and line length to the previous patch, but it doesn't
> > apply cleanly anymore. It's named add-suspend-method-to-cpufreq-
> > core-warning-fix.patch
>
> Yup, please, Andrew, get those 2 to Linus.
Just a heads-up : I didn't see these go into the git tree?
--
Colin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 2.6.12-rc3 cpufreq compile error on ppc32
On Thu, 2005-04-21 at 09:26 +0200, Colin Leroy wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> One of Ben's patches ("ppc32: Fix cpufreq problems") went in 2.6.12-
> rc3, but it depended on another patch that's still in -mm only:
> add-suspend-method-to-cpufreq-core.patch
>
> In addition to this, there's a third patch in -mm that fixes warnings
> and line length to the previous patch, but it doesn't apply cleanly
> anymore. It's named add-suspend-method-to-cpufreq-core-warning-fix.patch
Yup, please, Andrew, get those 2 to Linus.
Ben.
> Here's an updated version. HTH,
>
> Signed-off-by: Colin Leroy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c 2005-04-21 09:14:28.0 +0200
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c 2005-04-21 09:18:11.0 +0200
> @@ -955,7 +955,6 @@
> {
> int cpu = sysdev->id;
> unsigned int ret = 0;
> - unsigned int cur_freq = 0;
> struct cpufreq_policy *cpu_policy;
>
> dprintk("resuming cpu %u\n", cpu);
> @@ -995,21 +994,24 @@
> cur_freq = cpufreq_driver->get(cpu_policy->cpu);
>
> if (!cur_freq || !cpu_policy->cur) {
> - printk(KERN_ERR "cpufreq: resume failed to assert
> current frequency is what timing core thinks it is.\n");
> + printk(KERN_ERR "cpufreq: resume failed to assert "
> + "current frequency is what timing core "
> + "thinks it is.\n");
> goto out;
> }
>
> if (unlikely(cur_freq != cpu_policy->cur)) {
> struct cpufreq_freqs freqs;
>
> - printk(KERN_WARNING "Warning: CPU frequency is %u, "
> -"cpufreq assumed %u kHz.\n", cur_freq,
> cpu_policy->cur);
> + printk(KERN_WARNING "Warning: CPU frequency is %u,
> cpufreq assumed "
> + "%u kHz.\n", cur_freq,
> cpu_policy->cur);
>
> freqs.cpu = cpu;
> freqs.old = cpu_policy->cur;
> freqs.new = cur_freq;
>
> - notifier_call_chain(&cpufreq_transition_notifier_list,
> CPUFREQ_RESUMECHANGE, &freqs);
> + notifier_call_chain(&cpufreq_transition_notifier_list,
> + CPUFREQ_RESUMECHANGE, &freqs);
> adjust_jiffies(CPUFREQ_RESUMECHANGE, &freqs);
>
> cpu_policy->cur = cur_freq;
>
>
--
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
2.6.12-rc3 cpufreq compile error on ppc32
Hi guys,
One of Ben's patches ("ppc32: Fix cpufreq problems") went in 2.6.12-
rc3, but it depended on another patch that's still in -mm only:
add-suspend-method-to-cpufreq-core.patch
In addition to this, there's a third patch in -mm that fixes warnings
and line length to the previous patch, but it doesn't apply cleanly
anymore. It's named add-suspend-method-to-cpufreq-core-warning-fix.patch
Here's an updated version. HTH,
Signed-off-by: Colin Leroy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c 2005-04-21 09:14:28.0 +0200
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c 2005-04-21 09:18:11.0 +0200
@@ -955,7 +955,6 @@
{
int cpu = sysdev->id;
unsigned int ret = 0;
- unsigned int cur_freq = 0;
struct cpufreq_policy *cpu_policy;
dprintk("resuming cpu %u\n", cpu);
@@ -995,21 +994,24 @@
cur_freq = cpufreq_driver->get(cpu_policy->cpu);
if (!cur_freq || !cpu_policy->cur) {
- printk(KERN_ERR "cpufreq: resume failed to assert
current frequency is what timing core thinks it is.\n");
+ printk(KERN_ERR "cpufreq: resume failed to assert "
+ "current frequency is what timing core "
+ "thinks it is.\n");
goto out;
}
if (unlikely(cur_freq != cpu_policy->cur)) {
struct cpufreq_freqs freqs;
- printk(KERN_WARNING "Warning: CPU frequency is %u, "
- "cpufreq assumed %u kHz.\n", cur_freq,
cpu_policy->cur);
+ printk(KERN_WARNING "Warning: CPU frequency is %u,
cpufreq assumed "
+ "%u kHz.\n", cur_freq,
cpu_policy->cur);
freqs.cpu = cpu;
freqs.old = cpu_policy->cur;
freqs.new = cur_freq;
- notifier_call_chain(&cpufreq_transition_notifier_list,
CPUFREQ_RESUMECHANGE, &freqs);
+ notifier_call_chain(&cpufreq_transition_notifier_list,
+ CPUFREQ_RESUMECHANGE, &freqs);
adjust_jiffies(CPUFREQ_RESUMECHANGE, &freqs);
cpu_policy->cur = cur_freq;
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
