[Patch 1/6] cpufreq: use correct unit when verify cur freq
Sumit Gupta
sumitg at nvidia.com
Tue Apr 18 06:31:44 PDT 2023
On 18/04/23 18:27, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 1:35 PM Sumit Gupta <sumitg at nvidia.com> wrote:
>>
>> From: Sanjay Chandrashekara <sanjayc at nvidia.com>
>>
>> cpufreq_verify_current_freq checks if the frequency returned by
>> the hardware has a slight delta with the valid frequency value
>> last set and returns "policy->cur" if the delta is within "1 MHz".
>> In the comparison, "policy->cur" is in "kHz" but it's compared
>> against HZ_PER_MHZ. So, the comparison range becomes "1 GHz".
>> Fix this by comparing against KHZ_PER_MHZ instead of HZ_PER_MHZ.
>>
>> Fixes: f55ae08c8987 ("cpufreq: Avoid unnecessary frequency updates due to mismatch")
>> Signed-off-by: Sanjay Chandrashekara <sanjayc at nvidia.com>
>> [ sumit gupta: Commit message update ]
>> Signed-off-by: Sumit Gupta <sumitg at nvidia.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
>> index 8b0509f89f1b..6b52ebe5a890 100644
>> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
>> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
>> @@ -1732,7 +1732,7 @@ static unsigned int cpufreq_verify_current_freq(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, b
>> * MHz. In such cases it is better to avoid getting into
>> * unnecessary frequency updates.
>> */
>> - if (abs(policy->cur - new_freq) < HZ_PER_MHZ)
>> + if (abs(policy->cur - new_freq) < KHZ_PER_MHZ)
>> return policy->cur;
>>
>> cpufreq_out_of_sync(policy, new_freq);
>> --
>
> So this is a fix that can be applied separately from the rest of the
> series, isn't it?
Yes.
Thank you,
Sumit Gupta
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list