On 01/04/2013 12:19 PM, John Stultz wrote:
On 01/04/2013 06:33 AM, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
On 01/04/2013 02:28 PM, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote:
On Fri, 2013-01-04 at 15:14 +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 4 January 2013 15:09, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote:
For my part I have prepared a 3.8 branch for
On 01/04/2013 06:33 AM, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
On 01/04/2013 02:28 PM, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote:
On Fri, 2013-01-04 at 15:14 +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 4 January 2013 15:09, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote:
For my part I have prepared a 3.8 branch for vexpress [1] which
doesn't
yet contain An
We register the device for cpu1 but with only one state which
is actually WFI. This one is already the default idle function
when no cpuidle device is set for the cpu.
We can remove the cpuidle device for this cpu as it is the same
code path than the pm_idle callback.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcan
What we have now is (1) cpu0 going always to WFI when cpu1 is up,
(2) cpu0 going to all states when cpu1 is down.
In other words, cpuidle is disabled when cpu1 is up and enabled
when cpu1 is down.
This patch use the cpu hotplug notifier to enable/disable cpuidle,
when the cpu1 is plugged or unplu
The cpuidle_register_driver return value is not checked.
The init function returns always -EIO when cpuidle_register_device
fails but the error could be different.
This patch fixes that by checking the cpuidle_register_driver properly
and returning the correct value when cpuidle_register_device fa
The states are defined in the driver. We can get rid of the
intermediate cpuidle states initialization and the memcpy by
directly initializing the driver states.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano
---
arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c | 45 +++-
1 file changed, 17 i
A trivial patch to replace for_each_cpu(cpu_id, cpu_online_mask) by
the corresponding macro.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano
---
arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c |2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c
ind
[I already replied to this in private, but as other may have similar
problems, I'll make my answers public]
On 04/01/13 11:06, Anup Patel wrote:
> Hi Marc,
>
> We tried kvm-arm64/soc-armv8-kvm branch from your git tree on v8
> Foundation Model but we dont get any prints on serial terminal.
>
> W
Hello, Viresh.
On Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 04:41:47PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> I got a list of files where cpu/processor_id strings are found, which
> may break with
> this patch (still can't guarantee as i don't have knowledge of these
> drivers)...
...
> I am not sure what to do now :) , can yo
On Fri, 2013-01-04 at 18:33 +0400, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
> I take it as the vexpress topic (for the ll tree) and the big.LITTLE
> topic (for the llct tree) are ready to switch to 3.8, correct?
Yes for the vexpress topic assuming big.LITTLE and Android topics move
to 3.8.
--
Tixy
___
On 01/04/2013 06:33 PM, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
But if the topic owners fill comfortable with moving to 3.8, we can go
"feel comfortable" that is
___
linaro-dev mailing list
linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org
http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-d
On 01/04/2013 02:28 PM, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote:
On Fri, 2013-01-04 at 15:14 +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 4 January 2013 15:09, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote:
I assume we'll be moving to Linux 3.8 for the January release cycle?
For the 13.01 my plan was to stay at 3.7 plus the stable 3.7.y up
On Friday, January 04, 2013 10:44:36 AM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> 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 :)
Th
Hi Tejun,
On 27 November 2012 10:49, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 26 November 2012 22:45, Tejun Heo wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 06, 2012 at 04:08:45PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>
>> I'm pretty skeptical about this. queue_work() w/o explicit CPU
>> assignment has always guaranteed that the work item will
Hi Marc,
We tried kvm-arm64/soc-armv8-kvm branch from your git tree on v8 Foundation
Model but we dont get any prints on serial terminal.
We followed the step mentioned in
https://wiki.linaro.org/HowTo/BuildArm64Kernel except:
1. We used kernel compiled from kvm-arm64/soc-armv8-kvm branche from y
On Fri, 2013-01-04 at 15:14 +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 4 January 2013 15:09, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote:
> > I assume we'll be moving to Linux 3.8 for the January release cycle?
> >
> > For my part I have prepared a 3.8 branch for vexpress [1] which doesn't
> > yet contain Android patches or b
On 4 January 2013 15:09, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote:
> I assume we'll be moving to Linux 3.8 for the January release cycle?
>
> For my part I have prepared a 3.8 branch for vexpress [1] which doesn't
> yet contain Android patches or bit.LITTLE MP as their respective
> branches aren't on 3.8 yet.
b
Hi All
I assume we'll be moving to Linux 3.8 for the January release cycle?
For my part I have prepared a 3.8 branch for vexpress [1] which doesn't
yet contain Android patches or bit.LITTLE MP as their respective
branches aren't on 3.8 yet.
[1]
http://git.linaro.org/gitweb?p=landing-teams/workin
18 matches
Mail list logo
