From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1757188AbcCCTjI (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 3 Mar 2016 14:39:08 -0500
Received: from mail-lb0-f196.google.com ([209.85.217.196]:32964 "EHLO
	mail-lb0-f196.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1753414AbcCCTjE (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 3 Mar 2016 14:39:04 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20160303111858.GM6356@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <2495375.dFbdlAZmA6@vostro.rjw.lan>
	<26020775.9hJG2SHiH2@vostro.rjw.lan>
	<20160303111858.GM6356@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 20:39:02 +0100
X-Google-Sender-Auth: WnLsMTG_FY0b_bV0lb8ricTv-Kc
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0jU8EY16qSDuRFih0LMjpw=5jPe0aY-MAYJk=6iFdXX_Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] cpufreq: Support for fast frequency switching
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
        Linux PM list <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>,
        Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@linaro.org>,
        ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Michael Turquette <mturquette@baylibre.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 12:18 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 03:12:33AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> +void cpufreq_driver_fast_switch(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
>> +                             unsigned int target_freq, unsigned int relation)
>> +{
>> +     unsigned int freq;
>> +
>> +     if (target_freq == policy->cur)
>> +             return;
>
> But what if relation is different from last time? ;-)

Doh

Never mind, I'll drop this check (that said this mistake is present
elsewhere too IIRC).