On 9 November 2013 00:59, Stratos Karafotis <skarafo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I removed the check you proposed in this commit 934dac1ea072 to avoid
> the duplicate check in cs_check_cpu and in dbs_cpufreq_notifier.
>
> I agree that we don't need dbs_cpufreq_notifier if we transfer checks in
> cs_check_cpu. But I'm not 100% sure if the notifier also covers
> other cases and if it can be safely removed.
It is there to take care of out-of-sync issues, and was introduced by this
commit, so probably it will stay as is:
commit a8d7c3bc2396aff14f9e920677072cb55b016040
Author: Elias Oltmanns <e...@nebensachen.de>
Date: Mon Oct 22 09:50:13 2007 +0200
[CPUFREQ] Make cpufreq_conservative handle out-of-sync events properly
Make cpufreq_conservative handle out-of-sync events properly
Currently, the cpufreq_conservative governor doesn't get notified when the
actual frequency the cpu is running at differs from what cpufreq thought it
was. As a result the cpu may stay at the maximum frequency after a s2ram /
resume cycle even though the system is idle.
Signed-off-by: Elias Oltmanns <e...@nebensachen.de>
Signed-off-by: Dave Jones <da...@redhat.com>
---
drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
