On Wednesday 10 of October 2012 12:49:33 Rajagopal Venkat wrote:
> On 8 October 2012 13:44, MyungJoo Ham wrote:
> >> Prepare devfreq core framework to support devices which
> >> can idle. When device idleness is detected perhaps through
> >> runtime-pm, need some mechanism to suspend devfreq load
The function needs the cpuidle_device which is initially passed to the
caller.
The current code gets the struct device from the struct cpuidle_device,
pass it the cpuidle_add_sysfs function. This function calls
per_cpu(cpuidle_devices, cpu) to get the cpuidle_device.
This patch pass the cpuidle_d
The following patchset does some cleanup and prepares the place for the
multiple driver support.
We want to add an entry per cpu for the driver when the configuration defines
the support for multiple cpuidle drivers. This patchset creates a single
entry function for adding a cpuidle device to the
Move the kobj initialization and completion in the sysfs.c
and encapsulate the code more.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano
---
drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c |4
drivers/cpuidle/sysfs.c |7 +--
2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c b/
The structure cpuidle_state_kobj is not used anywhere except
in the sysfs.c file. The definition of this function is not
needed in the cpuidle header file.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano
---
drivers/cpuidle/sysfs.c |7 +++
include/linux/cpuidle.h |7 ---
2 files changed, 7 inserti
The next patchset providing the multiple drivers support
will add to the per cpu sysfs driver.
In order to prepare the place this patch creates a single
entry function when a cpuidle device is added or removed.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano
---
drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c |7 ---
drivers/
On 10/10/2012 04:17 PM, Michael Hudson-Doyle wrote:
Andy Doan writes:
On 10/10/2012 08:56 AM, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
Hi Dave,
On 10/10/2012 11:35 AM, Dave Pigott wrote:
Hi all,
I found an interesting health failure today on origen07
http://validation.linaro.org/lava-server/scheduler/job/
Andy Doan writes:
> On 10/10/2012 08:56 AM, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
>> Hi Dave,
>>
>> On 10/10/2012 11:35 AM, Dave Pigott wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I found an interesting health failure today on origen07
>>>
>>> http://validation.linaro.org/lava-server/scheduler/job/35016/log_file
>>>
>>> When y
Hi All,
There's a scheduled downtime for 30 min, tomorrow (Thursday) at 19:00UTC.
We plan to increase the disk space available on people.linaro.org.
Thanks.
Cheers,
--
Fathi Boudra
Linaro Release Manager | LAVA Project Manager
Linaro.org | Open source software for ARM SoCs
https://wiki.linaro.org/projects/big.LITTLE.MP
Blueprint updates
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/linaro-power-kernel/+spec/sched-cooperation-with-dvfs-and-idling
- slow progress
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/linaro-qa/+spec/task-placement-testing
https://blueprints.launchpad
On 10/10/2012 08:56 AM, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
Hi Dave,
On 10/10/2012 11:35 AM, Dave Pigott wrote:
Hi all,
I found an interesting health failure today on origen07
http://validation.linaro.org/lava-server/scheduler/job/35016/log_file
When you look at the log, you see that the board starts of
On 10 October 2012 19:14, Sudeep KarkadaNagesha
wrote:
> Here is my understanding on this patch. This change is closely related
> to ACPI cpufreq driver(used mostly on Intel cores). This change was
> introduced to keep track of the related cpus as returned by ACPI
> firmware along with affected cp
On 10/10/12 14:26, Viresh Kumar wrote:
[...]
I couldn't understand the difference b/w h/w and s/w coordination. What
do we mean by them here.
Following patch added related related_cpu stuff:
commit e8628dd06d66f2e3965ec9742029b401d63434f1
Author: Darrick J. Wong
Date: Fri Apr 18 13:31:12 20
Hi Dave,
On 10/10/2012 11:35 AM, Dave Pigott wrote:
Hi all,
I found an interesting health failure today on origen07
http://validation.linaro.org/lava-server/scheduler/job/35016/log_file
When you look at the log, you see that the board starts off at the u-boot prompt. It then
tries to do a "r
On Thu, Oct 04, 2012 at 07:58:45AM +0100, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 22 September 2012 00:02, wrote:
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/topology.c b/arch/arm/kernel/topology.c
>
> > +void __init arch_get_hmp_domains(struct list_head *hmp_domains_list)
> > +{
> > + struct cpumask hmp_fast_cpu_m
On 10 October 2012 17:31, Sudeep KarkadaNagesha
wrote:
> On 08/10/12 14:58, viresh kumar wrote:
>> affected_cpus(policy->cpus):
>> - List of CPUs that require software coordination of frequency.
>> - Processors part of affected_cpus share policy struct
>> - Policy limits the frequencies that the
Hi Viresh,
On 08/10/12 14:58, viresh kumar wrote:
Hi All,
Sorry for asking one of the most basic question of cpufreq :(
I couldn't get the difference between affected (policy->cpus) and
related cpus (policy->related_cpus) in cpufreq...
As per Documentation/code:
affected_cpus(policy->cpus):
On Wed, 2012-10-10 at 12:04 +0100, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
> Hi Tixy,
>
> Could you have a look at my code stealing patch below? Since it is
> basically a trimmed version of one of your patches I would prefer to
> put you as author and have your SOB on it. What is your opinion?
Yes, I can agree w
Hi Tixy,
Could you have a look at my code stealing patch below? Since it is
basically a trimmed version of one of your patches I would prefer to
put you as author and have your SOB on it. What is your opinion?
Thanks,
Morten
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 07:32:21PM +0100, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
> Fro
On 10 October 2012 15:47, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 04, 2012 at 07:49:32AM +0100, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> > This patch is reuse of a patch by Jon Medhurst with a
>> > few bits left out.
>>
>> Then probably he must be the author of this commit? Also a SOB is required
>> from him here.
On Thu, Oct 04, 2012 at 07:49:32AM +0100, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 22 September 2012 00:02, wrote:
> > From: Morten Rasmussen
> >
> > We can't rely on Kconfig options to set the fast and slow CPU lists for
> > HMP scheduling if we want a single kernel binary to support multiple
> > devices with
2012. 10. 10. 오후 4:19에 "Rajagopal Venkat" 님이
작성:
>
> On 8 October 2012 13:44, MyungJoo Ham wrote:
> >> Prepare devfreq core framework to support devices which
> >> can idle. When device idleness is detected perhaps through
> >> runtime-pm, need some mechanism to suspend devfreq load
> >> monitorin
Hi all,
I found an interesting health failure today on origen07
http://validation.linaro.org/lava-server/scheduler/job/35016/log_file
When you look at the log, you see that the board starts off at the u-boot
prompt. It then tries to do a "reboot", which (obviously) fails. So naturally,
it then
On 8 October 2012 13:44, MyungJoo Ham wrote:
>> Prepare devfreq core framework to support devices which
>> can idle. When device idleness is detected perhaps through
>> runtime-pm, need some mechanism to suspend devfreq load
>> monitoring and resume back when device is online. Present
>> code cont
24 matches
Mail list logo
