cpufreq: Don't skip cpufreq_frequency_table_cpuinfo()

The commit 6db0f53 ("cpufreq: preserve freq_table_sorted
across suspend/hibernate") unintentionally made a change where
cpufreq_frequency_table_cpuinfo() isn't getting called anymore
for old policies getting re-initialized.

This leads to potentially invalid values of policy->max and
policy->cpuinfo_max_freq.

Fix the issue by reverting the original commit and adding the condition
for just the sorting function.

Fixes: 6db0f53 ("cpufreq: preserve freq_table_sorted across suspend/hibernate")
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Cc: 6.19+ <stable@vger.kernel.org> # 6.19+
Link: https://patch.msgid.link/65ba5c45749267c82e8a87af3dc788b37a0b3f48.1773998611.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>

Author: vireshk

drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c

@@ -1427,12 +1427,9 @@ static int cpufreq_policy_online(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
 		 * If there is a problem with its frequency table, take it
 		 * offline and drop it.
 		 */
-		if (policy->freq_table_sorted != CPUFREQ_TABLE_SORTED_ASCENDING &&
-		    policy->freq_table_sorted != CPUFREQ_TABLE_SORTED_DESCENDING) {
-			ret = cpufreq_table_validate_and_sort(policy);
-			if (ret)
-				goto out_offline_policy;
-		}
+		ret = cpufreq_table_validate_and_sort(policy);
+		if (ret)
+			goto out_offline_policy;
 
 		/* related_cpus should at least include policy->cpus. */
 		cpumask_copy(policy->related_cpus, policy->cpus);

drivers/cpufreq/freq_table.c

@@ -360,6 +360,10 @@ int cpufreq_table_validate_and_sort(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
 	if (policy_has_boost_freq(policy))
 		policy->boost_supported = true;
 
+	if (policy->freq_table_sorted == CPUFREQ_TABLE_SORTED_ASCENDING ||
+	    policy->freq_table_sorted == CPUFREQ_TABLE_SORTED_DESCENDING)
+		return 0;
+
 	return set_freq_table_sorted(policy);
 }