On 26 February 2013 16:14, Thomas Renninger <trenn@xxxxxxx> wrote: > Redefining MIN_LATENCY_MULTIPLIER shouldn't hurt that much, but this looks > like a workaround. > It only modifies the minimal sampling rate that userspace can set. Yes. > You would still need to set something from userspace to get the perfect > sampling rate for this platform. Yes. We still need to fix sampling rate from userspace. > I wonder where the cpufreq driver does get the 1ms latency from? > Is this value valid? > The driver should return the correct latency, then there is no need for > workarounds like this. I am talking about ARM Vexpress TC2 (Test Chip) big LITTLE SoC here. Its not a production type SoC and freq change is a bit slow here. Its really around 1 ms :) But the real systems may not have this big of latency. Anyway, how do you come to 100 value in your initial patch. What motivated you to fix it there? -- viresh -- 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
