thermal: fix cpu_cooling max_level behavior

As per Documentation/thermal/sysfs-api.txt, max_level
is an index, not a counter. Thus, in case a CPU has
3 valid frequencies, max_level is expected to be 2, for instance.

The current code makes max_level == number of valid frequencies,
which is bogus. This patch fix the cpu_cooling device by
ranging max_level properly.

Reported-by: Carlos Hernandez <ceh@ti.com>
Signed-off-by: Eduardo Valentin <eduardo.valentin@ti.com>
Signed-off-by: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com>
This commit is contained in:
Eduardo Valentin 2013-11-13 14:11:09 -04:00 committed by Zhang Rui
parent 06475b556c
commit 1c9573a40c

View File

@ -173,6 +173,8 @@ static int get_property(unsigned int cpu, unsigned long input,
freq = table[i].frequency;
max_level++;
}
/* max_level is an index, not a counter */
max_level--;
/* get max level */
if (property == GET_MAXL) {
@ -181,7 +183,7 @@ static int get_property(unsigned int cpu, unsigned long input,
}
if (property == GET_FREQ)
level = descend ? input : (max_level - input - 1);
level = descend ? input : (max_level - input);
for (i = 0, j = 0; table[i].frequency != CPUFREQ_TABLE_END; i++) {
/* ignore invalid entry */
@ -197,7 +199,7 @@ static int get_property(unsigned int cpu, unsigned long input,
if (property == GET_LEVEL && (unsigned int)input == freq) {
/* get level by frequency */
*output = descend ? j : (max_level - j - 1);
*output = descend ? j : (max_level - j);
return 0;
}
if (property == GET_FREQ && level == j) {