On 01/04/2013 10:49 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 3 January 2013 19:55, Srivatsa S. Bhat
> wrote:
>> I took a quick look at the problem you described above, and the cpufreq
>> code..
>> If we cannot avoid calling cpufreq_add_dev() from cpufreq_remove_dev(), then
>> I can't
>> think of anything be
On 3 January 2013 19:55, Srivatsa S. Bhat
wrote:
> I took a quick look at the problem you described above, and the cpufreq code..
> If we cannot avoid calling cpufreq_add_dev() from cpufreq_remove_dev(), then
> I can't
> think of anything better than what your patch does.
Good :)
> BTW, off-top
On 3 January 2013 17:32, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> True, but have those bugs been introduced recently (ie. in v3.8-rc1 or later)?
Don't know... I feel they were always there, its just that nobody
tested it that way :)
___
linaro-dev mailing list
linar
On 01/02/2013 10:26 PM, Thomas Abraham wrote:
> On 2 January 2013 03:32, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> happy new year !
>>
>> I am trying to boot my exynos board for the first time but I have no
>> console output (the line shows "offline").
>>
>> I used a serial-usb with minicom and sc
Hi Viresh,
On 12/16/2012 11:20 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> This is how the core works:
> cpufreq_driver_unregister()
> - subsys_interface_unregister()
>- for_each_cpu() call cpufreq_remove_dev(), i.e. 0,1,2,3,4 when we
> unregister.
>
> cpufreq_remove_dev():
> - Remove policy node
> - C
On Thursday, January 03, 2013 09:02:22 AM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 3 January 2013 06:43, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >> BTW, i consider them as fixes and so would make sense to get them in next
> >> rc.
> >> What do you think?
> >
> > Yes, if somebody tells me "yes, this fixes a problem for me".
Hi Mike,
Thank you very much for your feedback.Considering your suggestions,I have
posted out a
proposed solution to prevent select_idle_sibling() from becoming a disadvantage
to normal
load balancing,rather aiding it.
**This patch is *without* the enablement of the per entity load tracking
m
