On 1/17/2019 12:57 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 17-01-19, 12:38, Taniya Das wrote:@@ -159,10 +170,18 @@ static int qcom_cpufreq_hw_cpu_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy) struct device *dev = &global_pdev->dev; struct of_phandle_args args; struct device_node *cpu_np; + struct device *cpu_dev; struct resource *res; void __iomem *base; int ret, index; + cpu_dev = get_cpu_device(policy->cpu); + if (!cpu_dev) { + pr_err("%s: failed to get cpu%d device\n", __func__, + policy->cpu); + return -ENODEV; + } + cpu_np = of_cpu_device_node_get(policy->cpu); if (!cpu_np) return -EINVAL; @@ -199,12 +218,18 @@ static int qcom_cpufreq_hw_cpu_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy) policy->driver_data = base + REG_PERF_STATE; - ret = qcom_cpufreq_hw_read_lut(dev, policy, base); + ret = qcom_cpufreq_hw_read_lut(policy, base);I asked you to pass cpu_dev here instead of dev and you said okay in the previous version of the patch. Didn't like it ?
:(, sent the next patch for review. -- QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation. --
