drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c | 8 +++++++- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Refuse to register a cpuidle device if the given CPU has a cpuidle
device already and print a message regarding it.
Without this, an attempt to register a new cpuidle device without
unregistering the existing one leads to the removal of the existing
cpuidle device without removing its sysfs interface.
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
---
v1 -> v2:
* Add the new check before the driver module reference counting (Dhruva).
---
drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c | 8 +++++++-
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
--- a/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c
+++ b/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c
@@ -635,8 +635,14 @@ static void __cpuidle_device_init(struct
static int __cpuidle_register_device(struct cpuidle_device *dev)
{
struct cpuidle_driver *drv = cpuidle_get_cpu_driver(dev);
+ unsigned int cpu = dev->cpu;
int i, ret;
+ if (per_cpu(cpuidle_devices, cpu)) {
+ pr_info("CPU%d: cpuidle device already registered\n", cpu);
+ return -EEXIST;
+ }
+
if (!try_module_get(drv->owner))
return -EINVAL;
@@ -648,7 +654,7 @@ static int __cpuidle_register_device(str
dev->states_usage[i].disable |= CPUIDLE_STATE_DISABLED_BY_USER;
}
- per_cpu(cpuidle_devices, dev->cpu) = dev;
+ per_cpu(cpuidle_devices, cpu) = dev;
list_add(&dev->device_list, &cpuidle_detected_devices);
ret = cpuidle_coupled_register_device(dev);
Hi Rafael, On Sep 19, 2025 at 13:22:20 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> > > Refuse to register a cpuidle device if the given CPU has a cpuidle > device already and print a message regarding it. > > Without this, an attempt to register a new cpuidle device without > unregistering the existing one leads to the removal of the existing > cpuidle device without removing its sysfs interface. > > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> > --- > > v1 -> v2: > * Add the new check before the driver module reference counting (Dhruva). Thanks for addressing! > > --- > drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c | 8 +++++++- > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > --- a/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c > +++ b/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c > @@ -635,8 +635,14 @@ static void __cpuidle_device_init(struct > static int __cpuidle_register_device(struct cpuidle_device *dev) > { > struct cpuidle_driver *drv = cpuidle_get_cpu_driver(dev); > + unsigned int cpu = dev->cpu; > int i, ret; > > + if (per_cpu(cpuidle_devices, cpu)) { > + pr_info("CPU%d: cpuidle device already registered\n", cpu); Sorry for not pointing this earlier, perhaps pr_err makes more sense? Anyway if you respin/ fix while applying: Reviewed-by: Dhruva Gole <d-gole@ti.com> -- Best regards, Dhruva Gole Texas Instruments Incorporated
On Fri, Sep 19, 2025 at 1:39 PM Dhruva Gole <d-gole@ti.com> wrote: > > Hi Rafael, > > On Sep 19, 2025 at 13:22:20 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> > > > > Refuse to register a cpuidle device if the given CPU has a cpuidle > > device already and print a message regarding it. > > > > Without this, an attempt to register a new cpuidle device without > > unregistering the existing one leads to the removal of the existing > > cpuidle device without removing its sysfs interface. > > > > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> > > --- > > > > v1 -> v2: > > * Add the new check before the driver module reference counting (Dhruva). > > Thanks for addressing! > > > > > --- > > drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c | 8 +++++++- > > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > --- a/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c > > +++ b/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c > > @@ -635,8 +635,14 @@ static void __cpuidle_device_init(struct > > static int __cpuidle_register_device(struct cpuidle_device *dev) > > { > > struct cpuidle_driver *drv = cpuidle_get_cpu_driver(dev); > > + unsigned int cpu = dev->cpu; > > int i, ret; > > > > + if (per_cpu(cpuidle_devices, cpu)) { > > + pr_info("CPU%d: cpuidle device already registered\n", cpu); > > Sorry for not pointing this earlier, > perhaps pr_err makes more sense? No, this need not mean a functional issue.
© 2016 - 2025 Red Hat, Inc.