Hi Rafael, On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 2:50 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 02:12:00 PM Hoan Tran wrote: >> The desired_perf is an abstract performance number. Its value should >> be in the range of [lowest perf, highest perf] of CPPC. >> The correct calculation is >> desired_perf = freq * cppc_highest_perf / cppc_dmi_max_khz >> >> Signed-off-by: Hoan Tran <[email protected]> >> --- >> drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c >> index 1b2f28f..ab1d4b7 100644 >> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c >> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c >> @@ -84,7 +84,7 @@ static int cppc_cpufreq_set_target(struct cpufreq_policy >> *policy, >> >> cpu = all_cpu_data[policy->cpu]; >> >> - cpu->perf_ctrls.desired_perf = (u64)target_freq * policy->max / >> cppc_dmi_max_khz; >> + cpu->perf_ctrls.desired_perf = (u64)target_freq * >> cpu->perf_caps.highest_perf / cppc_dmi_max_khz; >> freqs.old = policy->cur; >> freqs.new = target_freq; >> >> > > This patch has already been applied AFAICS. >
You mean this applied patch "cpufreq: CPPC: Avoid overflow when calculating desired_perf" This is another the bug, not the overflow bug. Thanks Hoan > Thanks, > Rafael >
