From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Viresh Kumar Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "cpufreq: pcc-cpufreq: update default value of cpuinfo_transition_latency" Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2016 14:28:52 -0700 Message-ID: <20160722212852.GE3122@ubuntu> References: <20160722151411.GB11711@suselix.suse.de> <20160722153656.GR3122@ubuntu> <3431802.ZZWypmTthK@vostro.rjw.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3431802.ZZWypmTthK@vostro.rjw.lan> Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Andreas Herrmann , Jacob Tanenbaum , stable@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On 22-07-16, 23:31, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > cpufreq.c > > > > if (policy->governor->max_transition_latency && > > policy->cpuinfo.transition_latency > > > policy->governor->max_transition_latency) { > > > > - And this check will always fail, unless max_transition_latency is zero. > > Why would it fail? If governor->max_transition_latency is non-zero, but less > than UNIT_MAX, the condition checked will be true to my eyes. Bad wording. Sorry. I meant, this 'if' check will always succeed (as you also noted), and so we will always get the error message reported in this patch. cpufreq: ondemand governor failed, too long transition latency of HW, fallback to performance governor -- viresh