On 16 October 2012 17:14, hongbo.zhang <hongbo.zh...@linaro.org> wrote:
> From: "hongbo.zhang" <hongbo.zh...@linaro.com>
>
> The cpufreq works as a cooling device, so the cooling layer should
> check and wait until the cpufreq driver is initialized.
Idea is good.
> Signed-off-by: hongbo.zhang <hongbo.zh...@linaro.com>
> ---
> drivers/thermal/cpu_cooling.c | 12 +++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/thermal/cpu_cooling.c b/drivers/thermal/cpu_cooling.c
> index d196230..01aba58 100644
> --- a/drivers/thermal/cpu_cooling.c
> +++ b/drivers/thermal/cpu_cooling.c
> @@ -29,6 +29,7 @@
> #include <linux/slab.h>
> #include <linux/cpu.h>
> #include <linux/cpu_cooling.h>
> +#include <linux/delay.h>
Would be better if we add them alphabetically. That makes there maintenance
easier. I know the list is already mismanaged. :)
If you can add another patch here to fix that, would be good.
> /**
> * struct cpufreq_cooling_device
> @@ -352,9 +353,18 @@ struct thermal_cooling_device *cpufreq_cooling_register(
> struct cpufreq_cooling_device *cpufreq_dev = NULL;
> unsigned int cpufreq_dev_count = 0, min = 0, max = 0;
> char dev_name[THERMAL_NAME_LENGTH];
> - int ret = 0, i;
> + int ret = 0, to = 1000, i;
> struct cpufreq_policy policy;
>
> + /* make sure cpufreq driver is initialized */
> + while (!cpufreq_frequency_get_table(0) && --to)
> + mdelay(10);
> +
> + if (!to) {
> + pr_err("No cpufreq driver act as cooling device.\n");
> + return ERR_PTR(-ENOSYS);
> + }
I understand that you want cpufreq to be there before this thing, but
i didn't like the idea here. There should be something else like
returning -EPROBE_DEFER, so that driver can be pinged again.
--
viresh
_______________________________________________
linaro-dev mailing list
linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org
http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
