cpufreq: Correct a freq check in cpufreq_set_policy()

This check was originally added by commit 9c9a43e ("[CPUFREQ]
return error when failing to set minfreq").It attempt to return an error
on obviously incorrect limits when we echo xxx >.../scaling_max,min_freq
Actually we just need check if new_policy->min > new_policy->max.
Because at least one of max/min is copied from cpufreq_get_policy().

For example, when we echo xxx > .../scaling_min_freq, new_policy is
copied from policy in cpufreq_get_policy. new_policy->max is same with
policy->max. new_policy->min is set to a new value.

Let me explain it in deduction method, first statement in if ():
new_policy->min > policy->max
policy->max == new_policy->max
==> new_policy->min > new_policy->max

second statement in if():
new_policy->max < policy->min
policy->max < policy->min
==>new_policy->min > new_policy->max (induction method)

So we have proved that we only need check if new_policy->min >
new_policy->max.

After apply this patch, we can also modify ->min and ->max at same time
if new freq range is very much different from current freq range. For
example, if current freq range is 480000-960000, then we want to set
this range to 1120000-2240000, we would fail in the past because
new_policy->min > policy->max. As long as the cpufreq range is valid, we
has no reason to reject the user. So correct the check to avoid such
case.

Signed-off-by: Pan Xinhui <xinhuix.pan@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>

drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c

@@ -2190,7 +2190,11 @@ static int cpufreq_set_policy(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
 
 	memcpy(&new_policy->cpuinfo, &policy->cpuinfo, sizeof(policy->cpuinfo));
 
-	if (new_policy->min > policy->max || new_policy->max < policy->min)
+	/*
+	* This check works well when we store new min/max freq attributes,
+	* because new_policy is a copy of policy with one field updated.
+	*/
+	if (new_policy->min > new_policy->max)
 		return -EINVAL;
 
 	/* verify the cpu speed can be set within this limit */