From: Nagananda.Chumbalkar@xxxxxx
Dominik said:
target_freq cannot be below policy->min or above policy->max.
If it were, the whole cpufreq subsystem is broken.
But (answer):
I think the "ondemand" governor can ask for a target frequency that is
below policy->min.
...
A patch such as below may be needed to sanitize the target frequency
requested by "ondemand". The "conservative" governor already has this check:
Signed-off-by: Thomas Renninger <trenn@xxxxxxx>
# diff -bur x/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_ondemand.c.orig y/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_ondemand.c
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_ondemand.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_ondemand.c
index 4b34ade..bd444dc 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_ondemand.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_ondemand.c
@@ -554,6 +554,9 @@ static void dbs_check_cpu(struct cpu_dbs_info_s *this_dbs_info)
(dbs_tuners_ins.up_threshold -
dbs_tuners_ins.down_differential);
+ if (freq_next < policy->min)
+ freq_next = policy->min;
+
if (!dbs_tuners_ins.powersave_bias) {
__cpufreq_driver_target(policy, freq_next,
CPUFREQ_RELATION_L);
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
