"Rafael J. Wysocki" <r...@rjwysocki.net> writes: > Bjorn, can you please check if the pm-cpufreq branch of the linux-pm.git tree > fixes the problem that you have reported
I can confirm that it fixes the major regression. With this branch, the cpufreq directory is completely removed after a cancelled userspace hibernate (with the acpi-cpufreq problem causing failure). So it is possible to restore cpufreq by manually offlining and onlining non-boot cores. No more leftover sysfs attributes. But there is still a minor regression compared to the old (v3.11) behaviour: Previously the cpufreq functionality would be automatically restored by any completed hibernate or suspend cycle, since it would effectively do the CPU offline/online. This automatix fixup won't happen with the current pm-cpufreq branch. User intervention is now required to fix up cpufreq. Which is expected, due to the special handling of cpufreq suspend. So there is still a small, small regression here, making me believe that my "fix" is better until the cpufreq suspend is properly fixed. But it's certainly not a major problem to me either way. Your call. > without causing any new breakage to happen? I'm not going to guarantee that :-) But I haven't noticed anything obvious during the 15 minutes I've been testing this branch so far. Bjørn -- 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/
