On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 1:35 PM Sumit Gupta <sumitg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> From: Sanjay Chandrashekara <sanjayc@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> cpufreq_verify_current_freq checks if the frequency returned by
> the hardware has a slight delta with the valid frequency value
> last set and returns "policy->cur" if the delta is within "1 MHz".
> In the comparison, "policy->cur" is in "kHz" but it's compared
> against HZ_PER_MHZ. So, the comparison range becomes "1 GHz".
> Fix this by comparing against KHZ_PER_MHZ instead of HZ_PER_MHZ.
>
> Fixes: f55ae08c8987 ("cpufreq: Avoid unnecessary frequency updates due to mismatch")
> Signed-off-by: Sanjay Chandrashekara <sanjayc@xxxxxxxxxx>
> [ sumit gupta: Commit message update ]
> Signed-off-by: Sumit Gupta <sumitg@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> index 8b0509f89f1b..6b52ebe5a890 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> @@ -1732,7 +1732,7 @@ static unsigned int cpufreq_verify_current_freq(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, b
> * MHz. In such cases it is better to avoid getting into
> * unnecessary frequency updates.
> */
> - if (abs(policy->cur - new_freq) < HZ_PER_MHZ)
> + if (abs(policy->cur - new_freq) < KHZ_PER_MHZ)
> return policy->cur;
>
> cpufreq_out_of_sync(policy, new_freq);
> --
So this is a fix that can be applied separately from the rest of the
series, isn't it?
