lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [May]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH V2] cpufreq: reinitialize new policy min/max when writing scaling_(max|min)_freq
On 26-05-18, 15:16, Kevin Wangtao wrote:
> consider such situation, current user_policy.min is 1000000,
> current user_policy.max is 1200000, in cpufreq_set_policy,
> other driver may update policy.min to 1200000, policy.max to
> 1300000. After that, If we input "echo 1300000 > scaling_min_freq",
> then user_policy.min will be 1300000, and user_policy.max is
> still 1200000, because the input value is checked with policy.max
> not user_policy.max. if we get all related cpus offline and
> online again, it will cause cpufreq_init_policy fail because
> user_policy.min is higher than user_policy.max.
>
> The solution is when user space tries to write scaling_(max|min)_freq,
> the min/max of new_policy should be reinitialized with min/max
> of user_policy, like what cpufreq_update_policy does.
>
> Signed-off-by: Kevin Wangtao <kevin.wangtao@hisilicon.com>
> ---
> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 2 ++
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> index b79c532..82123a1 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> @@ -697,6 +697,8 @@ static ssize_t store_##file_name \
> struct cpufreq_policy new_policy; \
> \
> memcpy(&new_policy, policy, sizeof(*policy)); \

Maybe add a comment here on why this is required ?

> + new_policy.min = policy->user_policy.min; \
> + new_policy.max = policy->user_policy.max; \
> \
> ret = sscanf(buf, "%u", &new_policy.object); \
> if (ret != 1) \

Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>

--
viresh

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-05-29 12:26    [W:0.091 / U:1.624 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site