From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753095Ab2KWT5O (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Nov 2012 14:57:14 -0500 Received: from mail-ea0-f174.google.com ([209.85.215.174]:46612 "EHLO mail-ea0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751970Ab2KWT5L (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Nov 2012 14:57:11 -0500 Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2012 20:57:02 +0100 From: Fabio Baltieri To: Viresh Kumar Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , cpufreq@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: ondemand: fix wrong delay sampling rate Message-ID: <20121123195700.GA29269@balto.lan> Mail-Followup-To: Fabio Baltieri , Viresh Kumar , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , cpufreq@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <1353676358-4385-1-git-send-email-fabio.baltieri@linaro.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Operating-System: Linux balto 3.7.0-rc2-00232-g6b8294a x86_64 GNU/Linux User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 07:23:28PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 23 November 2012 18:42, Fabio Baltieri wrote: > > Restore the correct delay value for ondemand's od_dbs_timer, as it was > > changed erroneously in 83f0e55. > > > > Cc: Viresh Kumar > > Signed-off-by: Fabio Baltieri > > --- > > 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 Thanks, Fabio -- Fabio Baltieri