Resolving a frequency to an efficient one should not transgress policy->max (which can be set for thermal reason) and policy->min. Currently there is possibility where scaling_cur_freq can exceed scaling_max_freq when scaling_max_freq is inefficient frequency. Add additional check to ensure that resolving a frequency will respect policy->min/max.

Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Fixes: 1f39fa0dccff ("cpufreq: Introducing CPUFREQ_RELATION_E") Signed-off-by: Shivnandan Kumar quic_kshivnan@quicinc.com --

Changes in v2: -rename function name from cpufreq_table_index_is_in_limits to cpufreq_is_in_limits -remove redundant outer parenthesis in return statement -Make comment single line

-- --- include/linux/cpufreq.h | 16 +++++++++++++++- 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/include/linux/cpufreq.h b/include/linux/cpufreq.h index afda5f24d3dd..7741244dee6e 100644 --- a/include/linux/cpufreq.h +++ b/include/linux/cpufreq.h @@ -1021,6 +1021,19 @@ static inline int cpufreq_table_find_index_c(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, efficiencies); }

+static inline bool cpufreq_is_in_limits(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, + int idx) +{ + unsigned int freq; + + if (idx < 0) + return false; + + freq = policy->freq_table[idx].frequency; + + return freq == clamp_val(freq, policy->min, policy->max); +} + static inline int cpufreq_frequency_table_target(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, unsigned int target_freq, unsigned int relation) @@ -1054,7 +1067,8 @@ static inline int cpufreq_frequency_table_target(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, return 0; }

- if (idx < 0 && efficiencies) { + /* Limit frequency index to honor policy->min/max */ + if (!cpufreq_is_in_limits(policy, idx) && efficiencies) { efficiencies = false; goto retry; }