Commit 42d951c8 authored by Stratos Karafotis's avatar Stratos Karafotis Committed by Rafael J. Wysocki

cpufreq: conservative: Fix comment explaining frequency updates

The original comment about the frequency increase to maximum is wrong.

Both increase and decrease happen at steps.
Signed-off-by: default avatarStratos Karafotis <stratosk@semaphore.gr>
Signed-off-by: default avatarRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
parent 00bfe058
...@@ -55,8 +55,8 @@ static inline unsigned int get_freq_step(struct cs_dbs_tuners *cs_tuners, ...@@ -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% * sampling_down_factor, we check, if current idle time is more than 80%
* (default), then we try to decrease frequency * (default), then we try to decrease frequency
* *
* Any frequency increase takes it to the maximum frequency. Frequency reduction * Frequency updates happen at minimum steps of 5% (default) of maximum
* happens at minimum steps of 5% (default) of maximum frequency * frequency
*/ */
static unsigned int cs_dbs_update(struct cpufreq_policy *policy) static unsigned int cs_dbs_update(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
{ {
......
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment