Hi, Viresh, Sorry for the late reply. I'll prepare the patch. BTW, do you think we should set requeste_freq to policy->max when such condition happens? Thanks Xiaoguang 2013/11/8 Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx>: > On 8 November 2013 00:36, Stratos Karafotis <skarafotis@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> I think the existing code already checks if the requested_freq is greater >> than policy->max in __cpufreq_driver_target. > > Yes it does. But the problem is: > - cs_check_cpu() sets requested_freq above policy->max > - We execute following code because (requested_freq != policy->max) > > dbs_info->requested_freq += get_freq_target(cs_tuners, policy); > __cpufreq_driver_target(policy, dbs_info->requested_freq, > CPUFREQ_RELATION_H); > - In __cpufreq_driver_target(), we don't do anything and return early.. > - Above will keep on repeating all the time.. > > If we change the code as I have suggested it to be: > - After first loop where requested_freq went over policy->max, we will > return early from cs_check_cpu(), but we have already set freq to max.. > >> If we put this check earlier, cpufreq will never reach policy->max. > > Can you please explain why do you see that happening? -- 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
