Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 18 Dec 2014 07:38:42 +0530 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: Stop BUGing the system | From | Viresh Kumar <> |
| |
On 17 December 2014 at 21:21, Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com> wrote: > CPUFRreq subsystem is not a system catastrophic failure point. > Failures in these cases DONOT need complete system shutdown with BUG. > just refuse to let cpufreq function should be good enough. > > Signed-off-by: Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com> > --- > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 17 +++++++++++++---- > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > index a09a29c..a5aa2fa 100644 > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > @@ -281,7 +281,10 @@ static inline void adjust_jiffies(unsigned long val, struct cpufreq_freqs *ci) > static void __cpufreq_notify_transition(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, > struct cpufreq_freqs *freqs, unsigned int state) > { > - BUG_ON(irqs_disabled()); > + if (irqs_disabled()) { > + WARN(1, "IRQs disabled!\n"); > + return; > + }
What about:
> + if (WARN(irqs_disabled(), "IRQs disabled!\n") > + return;
Same for the last change as well..
> > if (cpufreq_disabled()) > return; > @@ -1253,9 +1256,12 @@ static int __cpufreq_add_dev(struct device *dev, struct subsys_interface *sif) > /* > * Reaching here after boot in a few seconds may not > * mean that system will remain stable at "unknown" > - * frequency for longer duration. Hence, a BUG_ON(). > + * frequency for longer duration. Hence, a WARN(). > */ > - BUG_ON(ret); > + if (ret) { > + WARN(1, "SYSTEM operating at invalid freq %u", policy->cur); > + goto err_out_unregister; > + }
And I still don't agree for this one. We shouldn't keep on working on a potentially unstable frequency.
| |