On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 10:39 AM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.ku...@linaro.org> wrote:
> On 20 September 2013 14:03, Linus Walleij <linus.wall...@linaro.org> wrote:
>> I suspect this hunk from the patch may be the cause:
>>
>> + if (cpufreq_driver) {
>> + /* get the CPU */
>> + policy = per_cpu(cpufreq_cpu_data, cpu);
>> + if (policy)
>> + kobject_get(&policy->kobj);
>> + }
>>
>> - /* get the CPU */
>> - policy = per_cpu(cpufreq_cpu_data, cpu);
>>
>> As you see we *always* set a policy pointer before this patch,
>> but after this patch we only do it if we have a cpufreq driver
>> registered!
>
> Not really!! See this few lines above:
>
> - if (!cpufreq_driver)
> - goto err_out_unlock;
Hm that's true...
Any other idea why this patch is causing the issue?
It's not the same patch pointed out by Srivatsa...
Yours,
Linus Walleij
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
