From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752952AbaBXIqD (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Feb 2014 03:46:03 -0500 Received: from mail-ob0-f177.google.com ([209.85.214.177]:44179 "EHLO mail-ob0-f177.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752649AbaBXInX (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Feb 2014 03:43:23 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <1393225072-3997-1-git-send-email-skannan@codeaurora.org> <530AF7E4.5080806@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 14:13:22 +0530 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: Set policy to non-NULL only after all hotplug online work is done From: Viresh Kumar To: Saravana Kannan Cc: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 24 February 2014 14:11, wrote: > I just replied to the other email. I think I answered both your questions > there. Sorry about mixing up CPU and policy. In my case, each CPU is > independently scalable -- so for now take CPU == policy. I'll fix it up > once we agree on the fix. But why do you say this then? >>> In this specific case, CPU0 set's CPU1's policy->governor in >>> cpufreq_init_policy() to NULL while CPU1 is using the policy->governor >>> in __cpufreq_governor().