Re: RFC on cpufreq implementation

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 19/01/2015 08:52, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 15 January 2015 at 22:54, Mason wrote:
>> I decided to expose only a small subset of frequencies (namely
>> {999,500,333,111} MHz) because, in my tests, the ondemand gov
>> chose mostly min and max, and the intermediate frequencies not
>> so much; so I figured "2 intermediate freqs" is good enough.
>> (I'm ready to hear otherwise.)
> 
> Following patch solved this issue in 3.17..
> 
> 6393d6a1027e cpufreq: ondemand: Eliminate the deadband effect

Good to know, thanks! (I'm on 3.14)

https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=6393d6a1027ec1d69ec6246f6c7c2186f76c2abb

Do you have other comments/suggestions regarding my code?

Regards.
--
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



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Devel]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Forum]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux