On Sat, Jul 23, 2016 at 1:30 AM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 22-07-16, 23:46, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Friday, July 22, 2016 02:28:52 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> > On 22-07-16, 23:31, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> > > > cpufreq.c
>> > > >
>> > > > if (policy->governor->max_transition_latency &&
>> > > > policy->cpuinfo.transition_latency >
>> > > > policy->governor->max_transition_latency) {
>> > > >
>> > > > - And this check will always fail, unless max_transition_latency is zero.
>> > >
>> > > Why would it fail? If governor->max_transition_latency is non-zero, but less
>> > > than UNIT_MAX, the condition checked will be true to my eyes.
>> >
>> > Bad wording. Sorry.
>> >
>> > I meant, this 'if' check will always succeed (as you also noted), and
>> > so we will always get the error message reported in this patch.
>>
>> Not always, but for drivers setting cpuinfo.transition_latency to CPUFREQ_ETERNAL.
>
> So the drivers which have set their transition_latency to
> CPUFREQ_ETERNAL, can't use ondemand governor unless
> governor->max_transition_latency is set to 0 from userspace.
>
> What should be done about this patch then ? It broke in late 2015.
I'll apply the revert with a "Cc: stable" tag.
Question is what to do about the other drivers setting
cpuinfo.transition_latency to CPUFREQ_ETERNAL.
Thanks,
Rafael
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html