Break out the checks for duplicates and absolute settings being too high

instead of trying to do them all at once.  This should fix the level sorting
problems from the previous revision.

Testing help:	ume
This commit is contained in:
Nate Lawson 2005-09-02 16:32:43 +00:00
parent 1f71de49e1
commit 9000b91eb9

View File

@ -760,14 +760,23 @@ cpufreq_dup_set(struct cpufreq_softc *sc, struct cf_level *dup,
KASSERT(!TAILQ_EMPTY(list), ("all levels list empty in dup set")); KASSERT(!TAILQ_EMPTY(list), ("all levels list empty in dup set"));
TAILQ_FOREACH_REVERSE(itr, list, cf_level_lst, link) { TAILQ_FOREACH_REVERSE(itr, list, cf_level_lst, link) {
itr_set = &itr->total_set; itr_set = &itr->total_set;
if (fill_set->freq < itr_set->freq && if (CPUFREQ_CMP(fill_set->freq, itr_set->freq)) {
!CPUFREQ_CMP(fill_set->freq, itr_set->freq) && CF_DEBUG("dup set rejecting %d (dupe)\n",
fill->abs_set.freq <= itr->abs_set.freq) { fill_set->freq);
CF_DEBUG( itr = NULL;
"dup done, inserting new level %d after %d\n", break;
fill_set->freq, itr_set->freq); } else if (fill_set->freq < itr_set->freq) {
TAILQ_INSERT_AFTER(list, itr, fill, link); if (fill->abs_set.freq <= itr->abs_set.freq) {
sc->all_count++; CF_DEBUG(
"dup done, inserting new level %d after %d\n",
fill_set->freq, itr_set->freq);
TAILQ_INSERT_AFTER(list, itr, fill, link);
sc->all_count++;
} else {
CF_DEBUG("dup set rejecting %d (abs too big)\n",
fill_set->freq);
itr = NULL;
}
break; break;
} }
} }