On 08/27/2013 08:57 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 27 August 2013 00:07, Stratos Karafotis <strat...@semaphore.gr> wrote: >> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c | 4 ---- > > Get rid of few more checks.. > > /* if we are already at full speed then break out early */ > if (dbs_info->requested_freq == policy->max) > return; > > > /* > * if we cannot reduce the frequency anymore, break out early > */ > if (policy->cur == policy->min) > return; >
I think we should keep these checks because: 1) They shorten the execution code (there is no unnecessary call of __cpufreq_driver_target) 2) In case my patch will be accepted, we need them to avoid continuously increase of dbs_info->requested_freq.With my patch the requested_freq can temporarily overcome policy->min and policy->max. __cpufreq_driver_target will select the correct frequency (within policy->min and policy->max). Then, dbs_cpufreq_notifier will adjust requested_freq. I hope the logic in 2) to be acceptable. Thanks, Stratos -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
