Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: ondemand: fix wrong delay sampling rate

["Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>]

On Friday, November 23, 2012 08:57:02 PM Fabio Baltieri wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 07:23:28PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > On 23 November 2012 18:42, Fabio Baltieri <fabio.baltieri@linaro.org> wrote:
> > > Restore the correct delay value for ondemand's od_dbs_timer, as it was
> > > changed erroneously in 83f0e55.
> > >
> > > Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
> > > Signed-off-by: Fabio Baltieri <fabio.baltieri@linaro.org>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_ondemand.c | 3 ++-
> > >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_ondemand.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_ondemand.c
> > > index bdaab92..cca3e9f 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_ondemand.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_ondemand.c
> > > @@ -234,7 +234,8 @@ static void od_dbs_timer(struct work_struct *work)
> > >                         dbs_info->sample_type = OD_SUB_SAMPLE;
> > >                         delay = dbs_info->freq_hi_jiffies;
> > >                 } else {
> > > -                       delay = delay_for_sampling_rate(dbs_info->rate_mult);
> > > +                       delay = delay_for_sampling_rate(od_tuners.sampling_rate
> > > +                                               * dbs_info->rate_mult);
> > 
> > So sorry for my poor code :(
> 
> Actually I think that the new code is much better structured, and the
> patch was so big that I'll be surprised if this would be the only bug!
> 
> My problem is that I had to rewrite a patch based on the old code almost
> line-by-line but... these are the rules of the game!
> 
> > Reviewed-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>

Applied to linux-pm.git/linux-next as v3.8 material.

Thanks,
Rafael


-- 
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.