From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Langsdorf Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6 v4] cpufreq: tolerate inexact values when collecting stats Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 10:33:49 -0600 Message-ID: <50A2766D.6040008@calxeda.com> References: <1351631056-25938-1-git-send-email-mark.langsdorf@calxeda.com> <1352313166-28980-1-git-send-email-mark.langsdorf@calxeda.com> <1352313166-28980-4-git-send-email-mark.langsdorf@calxeda.com> <20121111163821.GA21635@x1.osrc.amd.com> <50A12565.4070701@calxeda.com> <20121113162449.GE9327@x1.osrc.amd.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from smtp167.dfw.emailsrvr.com ([67.192.241.167]:44445 "EHLO smtp167.dfw.emailsrvr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754612Ab2KMQdb (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Nov 2012 11:33:31 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20121113162449.GE9327@x1.osrc.amd.com> Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org To: Borislav Petkov Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "cpufreq@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" , MyungJoo Ham On 11/13/2012 10:24 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 10:35:49AM -0600, Mark Langsdorf wrote: >> The function is buried pretty deep in the cpufreq_stat code. It didn't >> seem appropriate to make it a function pointer as part of struct >> cpufreq_driver. > > Right, what's cpufreq-speak for > > if (Calxeda) > shift by 10 > > ? > > Better yet, add a flag or a bitfield called "minimize_jitter" or similar > and set it only on your hardware... Doing it in two passes has a similar effect: systems that have exact frequencies will get caught in the first pass when the values match. But adding a flag makes sense. --Mark Langsdorf Calxeda, Inc.