On Tue, 25 Jun 2013 19:21:05 +0300
[email protected] wrote:

> From: Ville Syrjälä <[email protected]>
> 
> Eliminate the weird inverted logic from the rps new_delay comparison.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä <[email protected]>
> ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c
> index 611da3a..62f8b2d 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c
> @@ -707,8 +707,8 @@ static void gen6_pm_rps_work(struct work_struct *work)
>       /* sysfs frequency interfaces may have snuck in while servicing the
>        * interrupt
>        */
> -     if (!(new_delay > dev_priv->rps.max_delay ||
> -           new_delay < dev_priv->rps.min_delay)) {
> +     if (new_delay >= dev_priv->rps.min_delay &&
> +         new_delay <= dev_priv->rps.max_delay) {
>               if (IS_VALLEYVIEW(dev_priv->dev))
>                       valleyview_set_rps(dev_priv->dev, new_delay);
>               else

Reviewed-by: Jesse Barnes <[email protected]>

-- 
Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

Reply via email to