On Thursday, November 17, 2016 09:10:59 AM Viresh Kumar wrote: > 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]>
Applied. Thanks, Rafael
