The call to cpufreq_update_policy() is placed in the CPU hotplug callback
of cpufreq_stats, which has a higher priority than the CPU hotplug callback
of cpufreq-core. As a result, during CPU_ONLINE/CPU_ONLINE_FROZEN, we end up
calling cpufreq_update_policy() *before* calling cpufreq_add_dev() !
And for uninitialized CPUs, it just returns silently, not doing anything.
To add to that, cpufreq_stats is not even the right place to call
cpufreq_update_policy() to begin with. The cpufreq core ought to handle
this in its own callback, from an elegance/relevance perspective.
So move the invocation of cpufreq_update_policy() to cpufreq_cpu_callback,
and place it *after* cpufreq_add_dev().
Signed-off-by: Srivatsa S. Bhat <srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
case CPU_ONLINE:
case CPU_ONLINE_FROZEN:
cpufreq_add_dev(dev, NULL);
+ cpufreq_update_policy(cpu);
break;
case CPU_DOWN_PREPARE:
case CPU_DOWN_PREPARE_FROZEN:
unsigned int cpu = (unsigned long)hcpu;
switch (action) {
- case CPU_ONLINE:
- case CPU_ONLINE_FROZEN:
- cpufreq_update_policy(cpu);
- break;
case CPU_DOWN_PREPARE:
case CPU_DOWN_PREPARE_FROZEN:
cpufreq_stats_free_sysfs(cpu);
return ret;
register_hotcpu_notifier(&cpufreq_stat_cpu_notifier);
- for_each_online_cpu(cpu)
- cpufreq_update_policy(cpu);
ret = cpufreq_register_notifier(¬ifier_trans_block,
CPUFREQ_TRANSITION_NOTIFIER);