[cut]
> The current version of this looks good to me and takes care of all the issues I
> raised earlier. Thanks.
>
>> +static int sugov_limits(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
>> +{
>> + struct sugov_policy *sg_policy = policy->governor_data;
>> +
>> + if (!policy->fast_switch_enabled) {
>> + mutex_lock(&sg_policy->work_lock);
>> +
>> + if (policy->max < policy->cur)
>> + __cpufreq_driver_target(policy, policy->max,
>> + CPUFREQ_RELATION_H);
>> + else if (policy->min > policy->cur)
>> + __cpufreq_driver_target(policy, policy->min,
>> + CPUFREQ_RELATION_L);
>> +
>> + mutex_unlock(&sg_policy->work_lock);
>> + }
>> +
>> + sg_policy->need_freq_update = true;
>
> I am wondering why we need to do this for !fast_switch_enabled case?
That will cause the rate limit to be ignored in the utilization update
handler which may be necessary if it is set to a relatively large
value (like 1 s).
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>
> Apart from that:
>
> Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx>
Thanks,
Rafael
--
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
