Messages in this thread | | | From | "Rafael J. Wysocki" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: ondemand: fix wrong delay sampling rate | Date | Fri, 23 Nov 2012 21:36:25 +0100 |
| |
On Friday, November 23, 2012 08:57:02 PM Fabio Baltieri wrote: > On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 07:23:28PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > On 23 November 2012 18:42, Fabio Baltieri <fabio.baltieri@linaro.org> wrote: > > > Restore the correct delay value for ondemand's od_dbs_timer, as it was > > > changed erroneously in 83f0e55. > > > > > > Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> > > > Signed-off-by: Fabio Baltieri <fabio.baltieri@linaro.org> > > > --- > > > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_ondemand.c | 3 ++- > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_ondemand.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_ondemand.c > > > index bdaab92..cca3e9f 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_ondemand.c > > > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_ondemand.c > > > @@ -234,7 +234,8 @@ static void od_dbs_timer(struct work_struct *work) > > > dbs_info->sample_type = OD_SUB_SAMPLE; > > > delay = dbs_info->freq_hi_jiffies; > > > } else { > > > - delay = delay_for_sampling_rate(dbs_info->rate_mult); > > > + delay = delay_for_sampling_rate(od_tuners.sampling_rate > > > + * dbs_info->rate_mult); > > > > So sorry for my poor code :( > > Actually I think that the new code is much better structured, and the > patch was so big that I'll be surprised if this would be the only bug! > > My problem is that I had to rewrite a patch based on the old code almost > line-by-line but... these are the rules of the game! > > > Reviewed-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Applied to linux-pm.git/linux-next as v3.8 material.
Thanks, Rafael
-- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
| |