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.balti...@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.ku...@linaro.org>
> > > Signed-off-by: Fabio Baltieri <fabio.balti...@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.ku...@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.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
