On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 06:30:33PM -0500, Len Brown wrote: > On 02/06/2012 11:31 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > > On Mon, Feb 06, 2012 at 08:17:11AM -0800, Andi Kleen wrote: > >> +#define reduction_pctg(cpu) \ > >> + per_cpu(cpufreq_thermal_reduction_pctg, phys_package_first_cpu(cpu)) > > > > I don't like using percentages here - we end up with the potential for > > several percentages to end up mapping to the same P state. > > > Does it matter? If you step through multiple percentages that map to the same P state, yes. On the other hand, re-reading the specification, it seems that this is the behaviour envisaged in the polling equation. I guess we'll stick with that. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx -- 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
