On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 04:49:15PM +0800, pi-cheng.chen wrote:

+static int cpu_opp_table_get_freq_index(unsigned int freq)
+{
+	struct cpu_opp_table *opp_tbl = dvfs_info->opp_tbl;
+	int i;
+
+	for (i = 0; opp_tbl[i].freq != 0; i++) {
+		if (opp_tbl[i].freq >= freq)
+			return i;
+	}
+
+	return -1;

My "return -1" detector fired on this...

+static int cpu_opp_table_get_volt_index(unsigned int volt)
+{
+	struct cpu_opp_table *opp_tbl = dvfs_info->opp_tbl;
+	int i;
+
+	for (i = 0; opp_tbl[i].vproc != -1; i++)
+		if (opp_tbl[i].vproc >= volt)
+			return i;
+
+	return -1;

And this.

+static int mtk_cpufreq_notify(struct notifier_block *nb,
+			      unsigned long action, void *data)
+{
+	struct cpufreq_freqs *freqs = data;
+	struct cpu_opp_table *opp_tbl = dvfs_info->opp_tbl;
+	int old_vproc, new_vproc, old_index, new_index;
+
+	if (!cpumask_test_cpu(freqs->cpu, &dvfs_info->cpus))
+		return NOTIFY_DONE;
+
+	old_vproc = regulator_get_voltage(dvfs_info->proc_reg);
+	old_index = cpu_opp_table_get_volt_index(old_vproc);
+	new_index = cpu_opp_table_get_freq_index(freqs->new * 1000);
+	new_vproc = opp_tbl[new_index].vproc;

Let's say that cpu_opp_table_get_freq_index() returns -1.  We then
do no error checking on this, and access the memory immediately
preceding opp_tbl[0].

Since we'll be loading garbage from opp_tbl[-1], this probably means
that mtk_cpufreq_voltage_trace() will go wrong.  Your method of using
the vproc values to work out which direction we should walk between
old_index...new_index means that we could end up walking through
almost the whole UINT_MAX range to wrap around to the new index.

Yet again, "return -1" proves to be a sure sign of a bug.

-- 
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 10.5Mbps down 400kbps up
according to speedtest.net.