Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | From | "Rafael J. Wysocki" <> | Date | Tue, 18 Apr 2023 14:57:05 +0200 | Subject | Re: [Patch 1/6] cpufreq: use correct unit when verify cur freq |
| |
On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 1:35 PM Sumit Gupta <sumitg@nvidia.com> wrote: > > From: Sanjay Chandrashekara <sanjayc@nvidia.com> > > cpufreq_verify_current_freq checks if the frequency returned by > the hardware has a slight delta with the valid frequency value > last set and returns "policy->cur" if the delta is within "1 MHz". > In the comparison, "policy->cur" is in "kHz" but it's compared > against HZ_PER_MHZ. So, the comparison range becomes "1 GHz". > Fix this by comparing against KHZ_PER_MHZ instead of HZ_PER_MHZ. > > Fixes: f55ae08c8987 ("cpufreq: Avoid unnecessary frequency updates due to mismatch") > Signed-off-by: Sanjay Chandrashekara <sanjayc@nvidia.com> > [ sumit gupta: Commit message update ] > Signed-off-by: Sumit Gupta <sumitg@nvidia.com> > --- > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > index 8b0509f89f1b..6b52ebe5a890 100644 > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > @@ -1732,7 +1732,7 @@ static unsigned int cpufreq_verify_current_freq(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, b > * MHz. In such cases it is better to avoid getting into > * unnecessary frequency updates. > */ > - if (abs(policy->cur - new_freq) < HZ_PER_MHZ) > + if (abs(policy->cur - new_freq) < KHZ_PER_MHZ) > return policy->cur; > > cpufreq_out_of_sync(policy, new_freq); > --
So this is a fix that can be applied separately from the rest of the series, isn't it?
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |