Re: [PATCH v1 1/4] Revert "cpufreq: Fix re-boost issue after hotplugging a CPU"

[zhenglifeng (A)]

On 2025/12/4 18:13, Pierre Gondois wrote:
> policy->max_freq_req represents the maximum allowed frequency as
> requested by the policyX/scaling_max_freq sysfs file. This request
> applies to all CPUs of the policy. It is not possible to request
> a per-CPU maximum frequency.
> 
> Thus, the interaction between the policy boost and scaling_max_freq
> settings should be handled by adding a boost specific QoS constraint.
> This will be handled in the following patches.
> 
> This reverts commit 1608f0230510489d74a2e24e47054233b7e4678a.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Pierre Gondois <pierre.gondois@xxxxxxx>
> ---
>  drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 4 ----
>  1 file changed, 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> index 852e024facc3c..11b29c7dbea9e 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> @@ -1478,10 +1478,6 @@ static int cpufreq_policy_online(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
>  
>  		blocking_notifier_call_chain(&cpufreq_policy_notifier_list,
>  				CPUFREQ_CREATE_POLICY, policy);
> -	} else {
> -		ret = freq_qos_update_request(policy->max_freq_req, policy->max);
> -		if (ret < 0)
> -			goto out_destroy_policy;
>  	}
>  
>  	if (cpufreq_driver->get && has_target()) {

I don't think this commit should be reverted individually. These changes
can be included in patch 4, as they are doing the same thing if I
understand it correctly.