Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 6 Feb 2013 07:17:16 +0530 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 3/7] cpufreq: Only query drivers that implement cpufreq_driver.target() | From | Viresh Kumar <> |
| |
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 11:54 PM, <dirk.brandewie@gmail.com> wrote: > From: Dirk Brandewie <dirk.brandewie@gmail.com> > > Scaling drivers that implement cpufreq_driver.setpolicy() have > internal governors and may/will change the current operating frequency > very frequently this will cause cpufreq_out_of_sync() to be called > every time. Only call cpufreq_driver.get() for drivers that implement > cpufreq_driver.target() > > Signed-off-by: Dirk Brandewie <dirk.j.brandewie@intel.com> > --- > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 2 +- > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > index 96bc302..d8daa4b 100644 > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > @@ -1787,7 +1787,7 @@ int cpufreq_update_policy(unsigned int cpu) > > /* BIOS might change freq behind our back > -> ask driver for current freq and notify governors about a change */ > - if (cpufreq_driver->get) { > + if (cpufreq_driver->get && cpufreq_driver->target) { > policy.cur = cpufreq_driver->get(cpu); > if (!data->cur) { > pr_debug("Driver did not initialize current freq");
I am really not liking copy-pasting my older comments here :(
"This would mean policy->cur has a garbage value. I don't really know how would other routine behave on this. Would it make sense to make policy->cur zero atleast? "
| |