[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKohpo=XhHtRfsVrUZr0DQCK5L5zU_6DB4PBOA4QrJBvvcbe0Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 21:37:25 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: Stratos Karafotis <stratosk@...aphore.gr>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
"cpufreq@...r.kernel.org" <cpufreq@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: governors: Remove duplicate check of target freq
in supported range
On 27 August 2013 21:16, Stratos Karafotis <stratosk@...aphore.gr> wrote:
> I think we should keep these checks because:
>
> 1) They shorten the execution code (there is no unnecessary call of
> __cpufreq_driver_target)
I don't really count this one.. This is how code is present everywhere in
kernel.. These checks are present in routines and callers don't need to
take care of them..
> 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.
Sorry, I couldn't understand what you meant here :(
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists