From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S976076AbdDYE52 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Tue, 25 Apr 2017 00:57:28 -0400
Received: from mail-pg0-f52.google.com ([74.125.83.52]:34638 "EHLO
        mail-pg0-f52.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S972864AbdDYE5S (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Tue, 25 Apr 2017 00:57:18 -0400
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 10:27:13 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
To: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com>
Cc: Javi Merino <javi.merino@kernel.org>, Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com>,
        Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>,
        Amit Daniel Kachhap <amit.kachhap@gmail.com>,
        linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org, Rafael Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
        linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Punit Agrawal <punit.agrawal@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 11/17] thermal: cpu_cooling: get rid of 'allowed_cpus'
Message-ID: <20170425045713.GU26900@vireshk-i7>
References: <cover.1492579345.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
 <4da549d2565a75420633850b6963fe50b3f02bad.1492579345.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
 <78b14ec9-e107-95dc-03b6-194b00834d6a@arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <78b14ec9-e107-95dc-03b6-194b00834d6a@arm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 24-04-17, 17:53, Lukasz Luba wrote:
> The policy pointer forwarded from cpufreq_update_policy()
> is a local variable 'new_policy' so cannot be compared with pinned
> policy pointer in the cooling device.
> You should do the cpumask test like before:
> 	if (!cpumask_test_cpu(policy->cpu,
> 			      cpufreq_cdev->policy->related_cpus))

Right. I have fixed it a bit differently now.

> But there is something still in the patch set...
> I will try to check it tomorrow.

I reviewed all the patches very carefully again, trying to find out the culprit
(I don't have the right hardware to test it like you have).

Found out that max_level isn't used properly at few places, fixed and pushed my
branch now. See if it works fine now.

HEAD: 6a883ddf73cd

-- 
viresh