From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Stratos Karafotis <stratosk@semaphore.gr>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: governors: Remove duplicate check of target
 freq in supported range
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 18:46:00 +0300
Message-ID: <521CC9B8.2020801@semaphore.gr>
References: <521BA068.8030003@semaphore.gr> <CAKohpo=xBmpEv=oN1qEnq9RKhfjtc4wZayVYyVzjWOU8BnwVJQ@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAKohpo=xBmpEv=oN1qEnq9RKhfjtc4wZayVYyVzjWOU8BnwVJQ@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <cpufreq.vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>, "cpufreq@vger.kernel.org" <cpufreq@vger.kernel.org>, "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>

On 08/27/2013 08:57 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 27 August 2013 00:07, Stratos Karafotis <stratosk@semaphore.gr> wrote:
>>   drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c | 4 ----
> 
> Get rid of few more checks..
> 
> /* if we are already at full speed then break out early */
> if (dbs_info->requested_freq == policy->max)
> return;
> 
> 
> /*
> * if we cannot reduce the frequency anymore, break out early
> */
> if (policy->cur == policy->min)
> return;
> 

I think we should keep these checks because:

1) They shorten the execution code (there is no unnecessary call of
__cpufreq_driver_target)
2) In case my patch will be accepted, we need them to avoid continuously
increase of dbs_info->requested_freq.With my patch the requested_freq
can temporarily overcome policy->min and policy->max. __cpufreq_driver_target
will select the correct frequency (within policy->min and policy->max).
Then, dbs_cpufreq_notifier will adjust requested_freq.

I hope the logic in 2) to be acceptable.


Thanks,
Stratos