On 21-04-25, 03:13, Aaron Kling via B4 Relay wrote:
> From: Aaron Kling <webgeek1234@gmail.com>
>
> Instead, unregister the cpufreq device for this fatal fail case.
>
> Signed-off-by: Aaron Kling <webgeek1234@gmail.com>
> ---
> drivers/cpufreq/tegra124-cpufreq.c | 3 ++-
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/tegra124-cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/tegra124-cpufreq.c
> index 514146d98bca2d8aa59980a14dff3487cd8045f6..dc83b1631b13ec428f3b6bbea89462448a62adb4 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/tegra124-cpufreq.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/tegra124-cpufreq.c
> @@ -168,7 +168,8 @@ static int __maybe_unused tegra124_cpufreq_resume(struct device *dev)
> disable_dfll:
> clk_disable_unprepare(priv->dfll_clk);
> disable_cpufreq:
> - disable_cpufreq();
> + if (!IS_ERR(priv->cpufreq_dt_pdev))
> + platform_device_unregister(priv->cpufreq_dt_pdev);
What if someone tries to remove the module after this ? Won't we try
this again ? Shouldn't we set the cpufreq_dt_pdev to some sort of
error to skip doing that ?
--
viresh