On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 5:58 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 12:38 PM, Viresh Kumar
> wrote:
> So IMO all of the callers should be made clamp the target frequency
> between min and max and those checks should be dropped from the
> low-level helpers.
Okay, so doing this f
On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 12:38 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> Hi Rafael,
>
> Thanks for having a look at this..
>
> On 23-06-16, 02:28, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Tuesday, June 07, 2016 03:55:14 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> > +/* Find lowest freq at or above target in a table in ascending order */
>> >
Hi Rafael,
Thanks for having a look at this..
On 23-06-16, 02:28, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 07, 2016 03:55:14 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > +/* Find lowest freq at or above target in a table in ascending order */
> > +static inline int cpufreq_table_find_index_al(struct cpufreq_pol
On Tuesday, June 07, 2016 03:55:14 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> cpufreq drivers aren't required to provide a sorted frequency table
> today, and even the ones which provide a sorted table aren't handled
> efficiently by cpufreq core.
>
> This patch adds infrastructure to verify if the freq-table provi
cpufreq drivers aren't required to provide a sorted frequency table
today, and even the ones which provide a sorted table aren't handled
efficiently by cpufreq core.
This patch adds infrastructure to verify if the freq-table provided by
the drivers is sorted or not, and use efficient helpers if th
5 matches
Mail list logo
