Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > linux.kernel > #1523772 > unrolled thread

[PATCH v2] cpufreq: conservative: Fix comment explaining frequency updates

Started byStratos Karafotis <stratosk@semaphore.gr>
First post2016-11-16 20:30 +0100
Last post2016-11-24 02:10 +0100
Articles 3 — 3 participants

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel


Contents

  [PATCH v2] cpufreq: conservative: Fix comment explaining frequency  updates Stratos Karafotis <stratosk@semaphore.gr> - 2016-11-16 20:30 +0100
    Re: [PATCH v2] cpufreq: conservative: Fix comment explaining  frequency updates Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> - 2016-11-17 04:50 +0100
      Re: [PATCH v2] cpufreq: conservative: Fix comment explaining frequency updates "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net> - 2016-11-24 02:10 +0100

#1523772 — [PATCH v2] cpufreq: conservative: Fix comment explaining frequency updates

FromStratos Karafotis <stratosk@semaphore.gr>
Date2016-11-16 20:30 +0100
Subject[PATCH v2] cpufreq: conservative: Fix comment explaining frequency updates
Message-ID<sEe4a-73R-7@gated-at.bofh.it>
The original comment about the frequency increase to maximum is wrong.

Both increase and decrease happen at steps.

Signed-off-by: Stratos Karafotis <stratosk@semaphore.gr>
---
 -> v2
Remove a trailing space

 drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c
index a48b724..7522ec6 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c
@@ -55,8 +55,8 @@ static inline unsigned int get_freq_step(struct cs_dbs_tuners *cs_tuners,
  * sampling_down_factor, we check, if current idle time is more than 80%
  * (default), then we try to decrease frequency
  *
- * Any frequency increase takes it to the maximum frequency. Frequency reduction
- * happens at minimum steps of 5% (default) of maximum frequency
+ * Frequency updates happen at minimum steps of 5% (default) of maximum
+ * frequency
  */
 static unsigned int cs_dbs_update(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
 {
-- 
2.7.4

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]


#1524070 — Re: [PATCH v2] cpufreq: conservative: Fix comment explaining frequency updates

FromViresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Date2016-11-17 04:50 +0100
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2] cpufreq: conservative: Fix comment explaining frequency updates
Message-ID<sElS2-3EH-15@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1523772
On 16-11-16, 21:27, Stratos Karafotis wrote:
> The original comment about the frequency increase to maximum is wrong.
> 
> Both increase and decrease happen at steps.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Stratos Karafotis <stratosk@semaphore.gr>
> ---
>  -> v2
> Remove a trailing space
> 
>  drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c
> index a48b724..7522ec6 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c
> @@ -55,8 +55,8 @@ static inline unsigned int get_freq_step(struct cs_dbs_tuners *cs_tuners,
>   * sampling_down_factor, we check, if current idle time is more than 80%
>   * (default), then we try to decrease frequency
>   *
> - * Any frequency increase takes it to the maximum frequency. Frequency reduction
> - * happens at minimum steps of 5% (default) of maximum frequency
> + * Frequency updates happen at minimum steps of 5% (default) of maximum
> + * frequency
>   */
>  static unsigned int cs_dbs_update(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
>  {

Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>

-- 
viresh

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#1528907 — Re: [PATCH v2] cpufreq: conservative: Fix comment explaining frequency updates

From"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
Date2016-11-24 02:10 +0100
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2] cpufreq: conservative: Fix comment explaining frequency updates
Message-ID<sGQI1-3Yw-15@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1524070
On Thursday, November 17, 2016 09:10:59 AM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 16-11-16, 21:27, Stratos Karafotis wrote:
> > The original comment about the frequency increase to maximum is wrong.
> > 
> > Both increase and decrease happen at steps.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Stratos Karafotis <stratosk@semaphore.gr>
> > ---
> >  -> v2
> > Remove a trailing space
> > 
> >  drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c | 4 ++--
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c
> > index a48b724..7522ec6 100644
> > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c
> > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c
> > @@ -55,8 +55,8 @@ static inline unsigned int get_freq_step(struct cs_dbs_tuners *cs_tuners,
> >   * sampling_down_factor, we check, if current idle time is more than 80%
> >   * (default), then we try to decrease frequency
> >   *
> > - * Any frequency increase takes it to the maximum frequency. Frequency reduction
> > - * happens at minimum steps of 5% (default) of maximum frequency
> > + * Frequency updates happen at minimum steps of 5% (default) of maximum
> > + * frequency
> >   */
> >  static unsigned int cs_dbs_update(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
> >  {
> 
> Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>

Applied.

Thanks,
Rafael

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]


Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel


csiph-web