* linux-next: manual merge of the cpufreq-arm tree with the pm tree
@ 2026-09-22 9:59 Mark Brown
2026-09-22 17:43 ` Wysocki, Rafael J
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Mark Brown @ 2026-09-22 9:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Viresh Kumar
Cc: Christian Loehle, Linux Kernel Mailing List,
Linux Next Mailing List, Rafael J. Wysocki, Sumeet Pawnikar
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1749 bytes --]
Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the cpufreq-arm tree got a conflict in:
drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c
between commit:
995e7d4680706 ("cpufreq: CPPC: Create the FIE worker before enabling PCC callbacks")
from the pm tree and commit:
d82d896f00e7b ("cpufreq: Use %pe to print error pointers symbolically")
from the cpufreq-arm tree.
I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
is submitted for merging. You may also want to consider cooperating
with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
complex conflicts.
diff --cc drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c
index 09e55bfdca885,f767898ebfb57..0000000000000
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c
@@@ -240,19 -228,16 +240,19 @@@ static int cppc_fie_kworker_init(void
};
int ret;
- kworker_fie = kthread_run_worker(0, "cppc_fie");
- if (IS_ERR(kworker_fie)) {
+ guard(mutex)(&cppc_fie_lock);
+
+ if (kworker_fie)
+ return 0;
+
+ worker = kthread_run_worker(0, "cppc_fie");
+ if (IS_ERR(worker)) {
- pr_warn("%s: failed to create kworker_fie: %ld\n", __func__,
- PTR_ERR(worker));
+ pr_warn("%s: failed to create kworker_fie: %pe\n", __func__,
- kworker_fie);
- fie_disabled = FIE_DISABLED;
- kworker_fie = NULL;
- return;
++ worker);
+ return PTR_ERR(worker);
}
- ret = sched_setattr_nocheck(kworker_fie->task, &attr);
+ ret = sched_setattr_nocheck(worker->task, &attr);
if (ret) {
pr_warn("%s: failed to set SCHED_DEADLINE: %d\n", __func__,
ret);
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: linux-next: manual merge of the cpufreq-arm tree with the pm tree
2026-09-22 9:59 linux-next: manual merge of the cpufreq-arm tree with the pm tree Mark Brown
@ 2026-09-22 17:43 ` Wysocki, Rafael J
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Wysocki, Rafael J @ 2026-09-22 17:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mark Brown, Viresh Kumar
Cc: Christian Loehle, Linux Kernel Mailing List,
Linux Next Mailing List, Sumeet Pawnikar, linux-pm
Hi Mark,
On 9/22/2026 11:59 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the cpufreq-arm tree got a conflict in:
>
> drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c
>
> between commit:
>
> 995e7d4680706 ("cpufreq: CPPC: Create the FIE worker before enabling PCC callbacks")
>
> from the pm tree and commit:
>
> d82d896f00e7b ("cpufreq: Use %pe to print error pointers symbolically")
>
> from the cpufreq-arm tree.
>
> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
> is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
> conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
> is submitted for merging. You may also want to consider cooperating
> with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
> complex conflicts.
>
> diff --cc drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c
> index 09e55bfdca885,f767898ebfb57..0000000000000
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c
> @@@ -240,19 -228,16 +240,19 @@@ static int cppc_fie_kworker_init(void
> };
> int ret;
>
> - kworker_fie = kthread_run_worker(0, "cppc_fie");
> - if (IS_ERR(kworker_fie)) {
> + guard(mutex)(&cppc_fie_lock);
> +
> + if (kworker_fie)
> + return 0;
> +
> + worker = kthread_run_worker(0, "cppc_fie");
> + if (IS_ERR(worker)) {
> - pr_warn("%s: failed to create kworker_fie: %ld\n", __func__,
> - PTR_ERR(worker));
> + pr_warn("%s: failed to create kworker_fie: %pe\n", __func__,
> - kworker_fie);
> - fie_disabled = FIE_DISABLED;
> - kworker_fie = NULL;
> - return;
> ++ worker);
> + return PTR_ERR(worker);
> }
>
> - ret = sched_setattr_nocheck(kworker_fie->task, &attr);
> + ret = sched_setattr_nocheck(worker->task, &attr);
> if (ret) {
> pr_warn("%s: failed to set SCHED_DEADLINE: %d\n", __func__,
> ret);
The resolution looks good to me, thank you!
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: linux-next: manual merge of the cpufreq-arm tree with the pm tree
2025-02-06 0:50 Stephen Rothwell
@ 2025-02-06 3:35 ` Viresh Kumar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Viresh Kumar @ 2025-02-06 3:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stephen Rothwell
Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki, Aboorva Devarajan, Linux Kernel Mailing List,
Linux Next Mailing List, Rafael J. Wysocki
On 06-02-25, 11:50, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the cpufreq-arm tree got a conflict in:
>
> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
>
> between commit:
>
> 0813fd2e14ca ("cpufreq: prevent NULL dereference in cpufreq_online()")
>
> from the pm tree and commit:
>
> 60208a700f76 ("cpufreq: Restrict enabling boost on policies with no boost frequencies")
>
> from the cpufreq-arm tree.
Fixed now.
--
viresh
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* linux-next: manual merge of the cpufreq-arm tree with the pm tree
@ 2025-02-06 0:50 Stephen Rothwell
2025-02-06 3:35 ` Viresh Kumar
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Stephen Rothwell @ 2025-02-06 0:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Viresh Kumar, Rafael J. Wysocki
Cc: Aboorva Devarajan, Linux Kernel Mailing List,
Linux Next Mailing List, Rafael J. Wysocki
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1461 bytes --]
Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the cpufreq-arm tree got a conflict in:
drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
between commit:
0813fd2e14ca ("cpufreq: prevent NULL dereference in cpufreq_online()")
from the pm tree and commit:
60208a700f76 ("cpufreq: Restrict enabling boost on policies with no boost frequencies")
from the cpufreq-arm tree.
I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
is submitted for merging. You may also want to consider cooperating
with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
complex conflicts.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
diff --cc drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
index 30ffbddc7ece,3bb5cef263da..000000000000
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
@@@ -1571,7 -1590,7 +1590,7 @@@ static int cpufreq_online(unsigned int
policy->cdev = of_cpufreq_cooling_register(policy);
/* Let the per-policy boost flag mirror the cpufreq_driver boost during init */
- if (cpufreq_driver->set_boost &&
- if (policy->boost_supported &&
++ if (cpufreq_driver->set_boost && policy->boost_supported &&
policy->boost_enabled != cpufreq_boost_enabled()) {
policy->boost_enabled = cpufreq_boost_enabled();
ret = cpufreq_driver->set_boost(policy, policy->boost_enabled);
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2026-09-22 17:43 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2026-09-22 9:59 linux-next: manual merge of the cpufreq-arm tree with the pm tree Mark Brown
2026-09-22 17:43 ` Wysocki, Rafael J
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2025-02-06 0:50 Stephen Rothwell
2025-02-06 3:35 ` Viresh Kumar
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®