On 16-11-16, 21:27, Stratos Karafotis wrote: > The original comment about the frequency increase to maximum is wrong. > > Both increase and decrease happen at steps. > > Signed-off-by: Stratos Karafotis <[email protected]> > --- > -> v2 > Remove a trailing space > > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c > b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c > index a48b724..7522ec6 100644 > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c > @@ -55,8 +55,8 @@ static inline unsigned int get_freq_step(struct > cs_dbs_tuners *cs_tuners, > * sampling_down_factor, we check, if current idle time is more than 80% > * (default), then we try to decrease frequency > * > - * Any frequency increase takes it to the maximum frequency. Frequency > reduction > - * happens at minimum steps of 5% (default) of maximum frequency > + * Frequency updates happen at minimum steps of 5% (default) of maximum > + * frequency > */ > static unsigned int cs_dbs_update(struct cpufreq_policy *policy) > {
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <[email protected]> -- viresh
