cpufreq: Don't use cpu removed during cpufreq_driver_unregister

This is how the core works:
cpufreq_driver_unregister()
 - subsys_interface_unregister()
   - for_each_cpu() call cpufreq_remove_dev(), i.e. 0,1,2,3,4 when we
     unregister.

cpufreq_remove_dev():
 - Remove policy node
 - Call cpufreq_add_dev() for next cpu, sharing mask with removed cpu.
   i.e. When cpu 0 is removed, we call it for cpu 1. And when called for cpu 2,
   we call it for cpu 3.
   - cpufreq_add_dev() would call cpufreq_driver->init()
   - init would return mask as AND of 2, 3 and 4 for cluster A7.
   - cpufreq core would do online_cpu && policy->cpus
     Here is the BUG(). Because cpu hasn't died but we have just unregistered
     the cpufreq driver, online cpu would still have cpu 2 in it. And so thing
     go bad again.

Solution: Keep cpumask of cpus that are registered with cpufreq core and clear
	  cpus when we get a call from subsys_interface_unregister() via
	  cpufreq_remove_dev().

Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
cpufreq: Simplify __cpufreq_remove_dev()

__cpufreq_remove_dev() is called on multiple occasions: cpufreq_driver
unregister and cpu removals.

Current implementation of this routine is overly complex without much need. If
the cpu to be removed is the policy->cpu, we remove the policy first and add all
other cpus again from policy->cpus and then finally call __cpufreq_remove_dev()
again to remove the cpu to be deleted. Haahhhh..

There exist a simple solution to removal of a cpu:
- Simply use the old policy structure
- update its fields like: policy->cpu, etc.
- notify any users of cpufreq, which depend on changing policy->cpu

Hence this patch, which tries to implement the above theory. It is tested well
by myself on ARM big.LITTLE TC2 SoC, which has 5 cores (2 A15 and 3 A7). Both
A15's share same struct policy and all A7's share same policy structure.

Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Tested-by: Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
cpufreq: Revert "cpufreq: Don't use cpu removed during cpufreq_driver_unregister"

This reverts commit 956f339 "cpufreq: Don't use cpu removed during
cpufreq_driver_unregister".

With the addition of the following commit, this change/variable is not
required any more:

commit b9ba2725343ae57add3f324dfa5074167f48de96
Author: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Date:   Mon Jan 14 13:23:03 2013 +0000

    cpufreq: Simplify __cpufreq_remove_dev()

[rjw: Subject and changelog]
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
cpufreq: Simplify cpufreq_add_dev()

Currently cpufreq_add_dev() firsts allocates policy, calls
driver->init() and then checks if this CPU is already managed or not.
And if it is already managed, its policy is freed.

We can save all this if we somehow know that CPU is managed or not in
advance.  policy->related_cpus contains the list of all valid sibling
CPUs of policy->cpu. We can check this to see if the current CPU is
already managed.

From now on, platforms don't really need to set related_cpus from
their init() routines, as the same work is done by core too.

If a platform driver needs to set the related_cpus mask with some
additional CPUs, other than CPUs present in policy->cpus, they are
free to do it, though, as we don't override anything.

[rjw: Changelog]
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Tested-by: Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>