On Friday, October 26, 2012 01:17:12 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Friday, October 26, 2012 03:06:26 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > Avoid calling cpufreq driver's target() routine if new frequency is same as
> > policies current frequency.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Looks reasonable.
>
> Any objection from anyone?
OK, no objections.
Applied to the linux-next branch of linux-pm.git as v3.8 material.
Thanks,
Rafael
> > ---
> > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 4 ++++
> > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> > index 261ef65..28dc134 100644
> > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> > @@ -1476,6 +1476,10 @@ int __cpufreq_driver_target(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
> >
> > pr_debug("target for CPU %u: %u kHz, relation %u\n", policy->cpu,
> > target_freq, relation);
> > +
> > + if (target_freq == policy->cur)
> > + return 0;
> > +
> > if (cpu_online(policy->cpu) && cpufreq_driver->target)
> > retval = cpufreq_driver->target(policy, target_freq, relation);
> >
> >
>
--
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cpufreq" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
