On 18/04/23 18:27, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
External email: Use caution opening links or attachments 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?
Yes. Thank you, Sumit Gupta
