[Resend with plain text mode] Hi Prashanth,
On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 8:36 AM, Prakash, Prashanth <pprak...@codeaurora.org> wrote: > Hi Hoan, > > On 10/11/2016 3:12 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 <hot...@apm.com> >> --- >> 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; > The patch looks good, I suppose we can add a small optimization. We can do a > simple check > to see if the newly computed desired_perf is same as old one, If it is same > we can just return > here instead of calling cppc_set_perf with same desired_perf value. That's a good point. I can add a check into this patch. Thanks Hoan > > Thanks, > Prashanth
