Re: [PATCH V6 0/7] cpufreq: suspend early/resume late: dpm_{suspend|resume}()

["Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>]

On Tuesday, February 18, 2014 01:30:52 PM Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 02/17/2014 02:25 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > This patchset creates/calls cpufreq suspend/resume callbacks from dpm_{suspend|resume}()
> > for handling suspend/resume of cpufreq governors and core.
> > 
> > There are multiple problems that are fixed by this patch:
> > - Nishanth Menon (TI) found an interesting problem on his platform, OMAP. His board
> >   wasn't working well with suspend/resume as calls for removing non-boot CPUs
> >   was turning out into a call to drivers ->target() which then tries to play
> >   with regulators. But regulators and their I2C bus were already suspended and
> >   this resulted in a failure. Many platforms have such problems, samsung, tegra,
> >   etc.. They solved it with driver specific PM notifiers where they used to
> >   disable their driver's ->target() routine.
> > - Lan Tianyu (Intel) & Jinhyuk Choi (Broadcom) found an issue where tunables
> >   configuration for clusters/sockets with non-boot CPUs was getting lost after
> >   suspend/resume, as we were notifying governors with CPUFREQ_GOV_POLICY_EXIT on
> >   removal of the last cpu for that policy and so deallocating memory for
> >   tunables.  This is fixed by this patch as we don't allow any operation on
> >   governors after device suspend and before device resume now.
> 
> The series,
> Tested-by: Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com>

Is this series necessary to fix bugs that you're seeing in 3.14-rc and if so,
the what bugs are they?

> Patch 7/7,
> Acked-by: Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com>
> 

-- 
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.