From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Seiichi Ikarashi Subject: Re: [PATCH] intel_pstate: prevent max_perf_pct < min_perf_pct Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 08:18:46 +0900 Message-ID: <55EE1B56.3010205@jp.fujitsu.com> References: <55E97973.1020301@jp.fujitsu.com> <36DF59CE26D8EE47B0655C516E9CE6401CB04B52@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mgwym04.jp.fujitsu.com ([211.128.242.43]:30194 "EHLO mgwym04.jp.fujitsu.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751197AbbIGXUn (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Sep 2015 19:20:43 -0400 Received: from g01jpfmpwyt03.exch.g01.fujitsu.local (g01jpfmpwyt03.exch.g01.fujitsu.local [10.128.193.57]) by yt-mxq.gw.nic.fujitsu.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFF75AC0190 for ; Tue, 8 Sep 2015 08:20:39 +0900 (JST) In-Reply-To: <36DF59CE26D8EE47B0655C516E9CE6401CB04B52@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com> Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org To: "Chen, Yu C" Cc: "kristen@linux.intel.com" , "Wysocki, Rafael J" , "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" , "Zhang, Rui" Hi, Yu On 2015-09-07 18:00, Chen, Yu C wrote: > Hi, Seiichi > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-pm- >> owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Seiichi Ikarashi >> Sent: Friday, September 04, 2015 6:59 PM >> To: kristen@linux.intel.com; Wysocki, Rafael J >> Cc: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org >> Subject: [PATCH] intel_pstate: prevent max_perf_pct < min_perf_pct >> >> Add some value check to prevent a reversal, max_perf_pct < min_perf_pct. >> >> Signed-off-by: Seiichi Ikarashi >> > I guess a similar patch has been sent at: > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/6995461/ Yes, your patch looks better than mine from the point of view of covering intel_pstate_set_policy(). Still I have a question. Does your patch allow the following condition? limits.max_policy_pct > limits.min_perf_pct > limits.max_perf_pct > limits.min_policy_pct Regards, Ikarashi