Re: [Patch 1/6] cpufreq: use correct unit when verify cur freq

[Sumit Gupta]

On 18/04/23 18:27, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 1:35 PM Sumit Gupta <sumitg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > From: Sanjay Chandrashekara <sanjayc@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > cpufreq_verify_current_freq checks if the frequency returned by
> > the hardware has a slight delta with the valid frequency value
> > last set and returns "policy->cur" if the delta is within "1 MHz".
> > In the comparison, "policy->cur" is in "kHz" but it's compared
> > against HZ_PER_MHZ. So, the comparison range becomes "1 GHz".
> > Fix this by comparing against KHZ_PER_MHZ instead of HZ_PER_MHZ.
> >
> > Fixes: f55ae08c8987 ("cpufreq: Avoid unnecessary frequency updates due to mismatch")
> > Signed-off-by: Sanjay Chandrashekara <sanjayc@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > [ sumit gupta: Commit message update ]
> > Signed-off-by: Sumit Gupta <sumitg@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >   drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 2 +-
> >   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> > index 8b0509f89f1b..6b52ebe5a890 100644
> > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> > @@ -1732,7 +1732,7 @@ static unsigned int cpufreq_verify_current_freq(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, b
> >                   * MHz. In such cases it is better to avoid getting into
> >                   * unnecessary frequency updates.
> >                   */
> > -               if (abs(policy->cur - new_freq) < HZ_PER_MHZ)
> > +               if (abs(policy->cur - new_freq) < KHZ_PER_MHZ)
> >                          return policy->cur;
> >
> >                  cpufreq_out_of_sync(policy, new_freq);
> > --
>
> So this is a fix that can be applied separately from the rest of the
> series, isn't it?

Yes.

Thank you,
Sumit Gupta