Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: ondemand: fix wrong delay sampling rate

[Fabio Baltieri]

On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 07:23:28PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 23 November 2012 18:42, Fabio Baltieri <fabio.baltieri@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Restore the correct delay value for ondemand's od_dbs_timer, as it was
> > changed erroneously in 83f0e55.
> >
> > Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Fabio Baltieri <fabio.baltieri@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_ondemand.c | 3 ++-
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_ondemand.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_ondemand.c
> > index bdaab92..cca3e9f 100644
> > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_ondemand.c
> > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_ondemand.c
> > @@ -234,7 +234,8 @@ static void od_dbs_timer(struct work_struct *work)
> >                         dbs_info->sample_type = OD_SUB_SAMPLE;
> >                         delay = dbs_info->freq_hi_jiffies;
> >                 } else {
> > -                       delay = delay_for_sampling_rate(dbs_info->rate_mult);
> > +                       delay = delay_for_sampling_rate(od_tuners.sampling_rate
> > +                                               * dbs_info->rate_mult);
> 
> So sorry for my poor code :(

Actually I think that the new code is much better structured, and the
patch was so big that I'll be surprised if this would be the only bug!

My problem is that I had to rewrite a patch based on the old code almost
line-by-line but... these are the rules of the game!

> Reviewed-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx>

Thanks,
Fabio

-- 
Fabio Baltieri
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/