Re: [PATCH 5/7] cpufreq: balance out cpufreq_cpu_{get,put} forscaling drivers using setpolicy

[Viresh Kumar]

On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 11:54 PM,  <dirk.brandewie@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> From: Dirk Brandewie <dirk.brandewie@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> There is an additional reference added to the driver in
> cpufreq_add_dev()  that is removed in__cpufreq_governor() if the
> driver implements target().  Remove the last reference when the
> driver implements setpolicy()
>
> Signed-off-by: Dirk Brandewie <dirk.j.brandewie@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c |    3 +++
>  1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> index 622e282..d17477b 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> @@ -1049,6 +1049,9 @@ static int __cpufreq_remove_dev(struct device *dev, struct subsys_interface *sif
>         if (cpufreq_driver->target)
>                 __cpufreq_governor(data, CPUFREQ_GOV_STOP);
>
> +       if (cpufreq_driver->setpolicy)
> +               cpufreq_cpu_put(data);

I don't understand this patch at all.. I grepped both cpufreq_cpu_get() & put()
in bleeding-edge and found everything to be correct.

Can you please point me to the exact line numbers ?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/