On Fri, 19 Feb 2021 09:39:33 +0530 Viresh Kumar <viresh.ku...@linaro.org> wrote:
> On 19-02-21, 11:38, Yue Hu wrote: > > There's a possibility: we will use the previous freq to update if > > next_f is reduced for busy CPU if need_freq_update is set in > > sugov_update_next_freq(). > > Right. > > > This possibility would happen now? And this > > update is what we want if it happens? > > This is exactly what we want here, don't reduce speed for busy CPU, I understand it should not skip this update but set the same freq as previous one again for the specail case if need_freq_update is set. Am i rt? > but we also need to make sure we are in the policy's valid range > which cpufreq core will take care of. > > > This is related to another possible patch ready to send. > > I am not sure what's there to send now. I will send later after figure out the doubt above. >
