On 28 February 2013 11:08, Namhyung Kim <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Namhyung Kim <[email protected]> > > The relation should be CPUFREQ_RELATION_L to find optimal frequency > when decreasing. > > Cc: Viresh Kumar <[email protected]> > Signed-off-by: Namhyung Kim <[email protected]> > --- > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c > b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c > index dd2fd9094819..0d582811d66c 100644 > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c > @@ -106,7 +106,7 @@ static void cs_check_cpu(int cpu, unsigned int load) > dbs_info->requested_freq = policy->min; > > __cpufreq_driver_target(policy, dbs_info->requested_freq, > - CPUFREQ_RELATION_H); > + CPUFREQ_RELATION_L);
Other two patches are fine but really not sure about this one. When decreasing freq, what do we want: - lowest frequency at or above target, i.e. >= requested_freq - highest frequency below or at target, i.e. <= requested_freq I thought second option was better and so CPUFREQ_RELATION_H suits more. What made you do this change? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
