Commit 8f13c0c6 authored by Viresh Kumar's avatar Viresh Kumar Committed by Rafael J. Wysocki
Browse files

cpufreq: Don't skip cpufreq_frequency_table_cpuinfo() 



The commit 6db0f533 ("cpufreq: preserve freq_table_sorted
across suspend/hibernate") unintentionally made a change where
cpufreq_frequency_table_cpuinfo() isn't getting called anymore
for old policies getting re-initialized.

This leads to potentially invalid values of policy->max and
policy->cpuinfo_max_freq.

Fix the issue by reverting the original commit and adding the condition
for just the sorting function.

Fixes: 6db0f533 ("cpufreq: preserve freq_table_sorted across suspend/hibernate")
Signed-off-by: default avatarViresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Cc: 6.19+ <stable@vger.kernel.org> # 6.19+
Link: https://patch.msgid.link/65ba5c45749267c82e8a87af3dc788b37a0b3f48.1773998611.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org


Signed-off-by: default avatarRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
parent c3692998

drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c

+3 −6
Original line number Diff line number Diff line
@@ -1427,12 +1427,9 @@ static int cpufreq_policy_online(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, 
		 * If there is a problem with its frequency table, take it

		 * offline and drop it.

		 */

		if (policy->freq_table_sorted != CPUFREQ_TABLE_SORTED_ASCENDING &&

		    policy->freq_table_sorted != CPUFREQ_TABLE_SORTED_DESCENDING) {

		ret = cpufreq_table_validate_and_sort(policy);

		if (ret)

			goto out_offline_policy;

		}



		/* related_cpus should at least include policy->cpus. */

		cpumask_copy(policy->related_cpus, policy->cpus);

drivers/cpufreq/freq_table.c

+4 −0
Original line number Diff line number Diff line
@@ -360,6 +360,10 @@ int cpufreq_table_validate_and_sort(struct cpufreq_policy *policy) 
	if (policy_has_boost_freq(policy))

		policy->boost_supported = true;



	if (policy->freq_table_sorted == CPUFREQ_TABLE_SORTED_ASCENDING ||

	    policy->freq_table_sorted == CPUFREQ_TABLE_SORTED_DESCENDING)

		return 0;



	return set_freq_table_sorted(policy);

}