cpufreq: Fix misplaced call to cpufreq_update_policy()

The call to cpufreq_update_policy() is placed in the CPU hotplug callback
of cpufreq_stats, which has a higher priority than the CPU hotplug callback
of cpufreq-core. As a result, during CPU_ONLINE/CPU_ONLINE_FROZEN, we end up
calling cpufreq_update_policy() *before* calling cpufreq_add_dev() !
And for uninitialized CPUs, it just returns silently, not doing anything.

To add to that, cpufreq_stats is not even the right place to call
cpufreq_update_policy() to begin with. The cpufreq core ought to handle
this in its own callback, from an elegance/relevance perspective.

So move the invocation of cpufreq_update_policy() to cpufreq_cpu_callback,
and place it *after* cpufreq_add_dev().

Signed-off-by: Srivatsa S. Bhat <srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>

1 files changed, 0 insertions, 6 deletions

diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_stats.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_stats.c
index d37568c5ca9c..bc73be225be5 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_stats.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_stats.c
@@ -348,10 +348,6 @@ static int cpufreq_stat_cpu_callback(struct notifier_block *nfb,
         unsigned int cpu = (unsigned long)hcpu;
 
         switch (action) {
-        case CPU_ONLINE:
-        case CPU_ONLINE_FROZEN:
-                cpufreq_update_policy(cpu);
-                break;
         case CPU_DOWN_PREPARE:
         case CPU_DOWN_PREPARE_FROZEN:
                 cpufreq_stats_free_sysfs(cpu);
@@ -390,8 +386,6 @@ static int __init cpufreq_stats_init(void)
                 return ret;
 
         register_hotcpu_notifier(&cpufreq_stat_cpu_notifier);
-        for_each_online_cpu(cpu)
-                cpufreq_update_policy(cpu);
 
         ret = cpufreq_register_notifier(&notifier_trans_block,
                                 CPUFREQ_TRANSITION_NOTIFIER);