On 02-01-2014 00:02, Zhang Rui wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-12-06 at 09:52 -0400, Eduardo Valentin wrote:
>> On 13-11-2013 14:11, Eduardo Valentin wrote:
>>> As per Documentation/thermal/sysfs-api.txt, max_level
>>> is an index, not a counter. Thus, in case a CPU has
>>> 3 valid frequencies, max_level is
On Fri, 2013-12-06 at 09:52 -0400, Eduardo Valentin wrote:
> On 13-11-2013 14:11, Eduardo Valentin wrote:
> > As per Documentation/thermal/sysfs-api.txt, max_level
> > is an index, not a counter. Thus, in case a CPU has
> > 3 valid frequencies, max_level is expected to be 2, for instance.
> >
> >
On 13-11-2013 14:11, Eduardo Valentin wrote:
> As per Documentation/thermal/sysfs-api.txt, max_level
> is an index, not a counter. Thus, in case a CPU has
> 3 valid frequencies, max_level is expected to be 2, for instance.
>
> The current code makes max_level == number of valid frequencies,
> whic
On 13-11-2013 14:11, Eduardo Valentin wrote:
> As per Documentation/thermal/sysfs-api.txt, max_level
> is an index, not a counter. Thus, in case a CPU has
> 3 valid frequencies, max_level is expected to be 2, for instance.
>
> The current code makes max_level == number of valid frequencies,
> whic
As per Documentation/thermal/sysfs-api.txt, max_level
is an index, not a counter. Thus, in case a CPU has
3 valid frequencies, max_level is expected to be 2, for instance.
The current code makes max_level == number of valid frequencies,
which is bogus. This patch fix the cpu_cooling device by
rang
5 matches
Mail list logo