Re: [PATCH v2] cpufreq: Documentation: fix freq_step description

[Zhongqiu Han]

On 6/3/2026 1:56 PM, Pengjie Zhang wrote:
> The conservative governor documentation incorrectly states that setting
> freq_step to 0 will use the default 5% frequency step. In reality, since
> at least commit 8e677ce83bf4 ("[CPUFREQ] conservative: fixup governor to
> function more like ondemand logic"), freq_step=0 has always caused the
> governor to skip frequency updates entirely.
>
> Correct the documentation to reflect the actual behavior: freq_step=0
> disables frequency changes by the governor entirely.
>
> Fixes: 2a0e49279850 ("cpufreq: User/admin documentation update and consolidation")
> Signed-off-by: Pengjie Zhang <zhangpengjie2@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> Changes in v2:
> - Update commit message to reference the correct historical commit
>    8e677ce83bf4 instead of b9170836d1aa, as the original implementation
>    had asymmetric behavior for freq_step=0 (suggested by Zhongqiu Han).
> - Link to v1:https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260529111122.3321645-1-zhangpengjie2@xxxxxxxxxx/


Looks good to me.

Reviewed-by: Zhongqiu Han <zhongqiu.han@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>


> ---
>   Documentation/admin-guide/pm/cpufreq.rst | 4 ++--
>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/pm/cpufreq.rst b/Documentation/admin-guide/pm/cpufreq.rst
> index dbe6d23a5d67..98c724d49047 100644
> --- a/Documentation/admin-guide/pm/cpufreq.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/pm/cpufreq.rst
> @@ -586,8 +586,8 @@ This governor exposes the following tunables:
>   	100 (5 by default).
>   
>   	This is how much the frequency is allowed to change in one go.  Setting
> -	it to 0 will cause the default frequency step (5 percent) to be used
> -	and setting it to 100 effectively causes the governor to periodically
> +	it to 0 disables frequency changes by the governor entirely and setting
> +	it to 100 effectively causes the governor to periodically
>   	switch the frequency between the ``scaling_min_freq`` and
>   	``scaling_max_freq`` policy limits.
>   


--
Thx and BRs,
Zhongqiu Han