Re: [PATCH -next 3/3] cpufreq: conservative: Fix relation whendecreasing frequency

[Viresh Kumar]

On 28 February 2013 11:08, Namhyung Kim <namhyung@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> From: Namhyung Kim <namhyung.kim@xxxxxxx>
>
> The relation should be CPUFREQ_RELATION_L to find optimal frequency
> when decreasing.
>
> Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c
> index dd2fd9094819..0d582811d66c 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c
> @@ -106,7 +106,7 @@ static void cs_check_cpu(int cpu, unsigned int load)
>                         dbs_info->requested_freq = policy->min;
>
>                 __cpufreq_driver_target(policy, dbs_info->requested_freq,
> -                               CPUFREQ_RELATION_H);
> +                               CPUFREQ_RELATION_L);

Other two patches are fine but really not sure about this one.
When decreasing freq, what do we want:
- lowest frequency at or above target, i.e. >= requested_freq
- highest frequency below or at target, i.e. <= requested_freq

I thought second option was better and so CPUFREQ_RELATION_H
suits more. What made you do this change?
--
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/