2013/11/8 Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx>: > On 8 November 2013 10:31, Xiaoguang Chen <chenxg.marvell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Hi, Viresh, Sorry for the late reply. > > That's fine :) > >> I'll prepare the patch. > > Thanks. > >> BTW, do you think we should set requeste_freq to policy->max when such >> condition happens? > > I thought about that earlier, but then thought this would be a cleaner solution. > And guess what, I was wrong.. There is one scenario for which we need to > set requested_freq correctly.. > > Suppose we have requested_freq currently greater than policy->max and load > decreases. We will start decreasing requested_freq but it will take > one iteration > to make it equal to max, which is not we want.. So we actually need to set > it to max when it gets over it. > > So, don't do the change I asked for, i.e. replacing == with >=. But > update existing > code: > > dbs_info->requested_freq += get_freq_target(cs_tuners, policy); > > this way: > > dbs_info->requested_freq += get_freq_target(cs_tuners, policy); > if (dbs_info->requested_freq > policy->max) > dbs_info->requested_freq = policy->max; OK, patch will be sent out later Xiaoguang -- 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
