Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: Simplify __cpufreq_remove_dev()

On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 04:50:44PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > @Shawn: I believe your driver don't require that ugly code anymore (Though i > know there is a situation for that to happen, if we have two cpus, you remove > second one and then add it back. With this cpufreq_add_dev() would call init

Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: Simplify __cpufreq_remove_dev()

On 9 January 2013 21:09, Viresh Kumar wrote: > I have tried that too, it is also pushed at: > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/12/16/5 Bad link :( http://git.linaro.org/gitweb?p=arm/big.LITTLE/mp.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/cpufreq-fixes-v2 ___ linaro-dev

Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: Simplify __cpufreq_remove_dev()

On 9 January 2013 21:09, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 9 January 2013 16:50, Viresh Kumar wrote: >> [Probably need to simplify cpufreq_add_dev() too, but that can be done as >> next >> step.] > > I have tried that too, it is also pushed at: > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/12/16/5 > > [Untested for now

Re: [PATCH V2 Resend 3/4] workqueue: Schedule work on non-idle cpu instead of current one

On 10 January 2013 00:19, Tejun Heo wrote: > On Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 11:37:22PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: >> We are talking about a core being idle from schedulers perspective :) > > But it's not like cpu doesn't consume power if scheduler considers it > idle, right? Can you please explain in de

Re: [PATCH V2 Resend 3/4] workqueue: Schedule work on non-idle cpu instead of current one

Hello, On Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 11:37:22PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 7 January 2013 20:34, Tejun Heo wrote: > > The latter part "not using idle cpu just for processing work" does > > apply to homogeneous systems too but as I wrote earlier work items > > don't spontaneously happen on an idle

[PATCH] arm64: vexpress: Select ARCH_REQUIRE_GPIOLIB for PLAT_VEXPRESS

Patch 25c92a37a (arm64: Always select ARM_AMBA and GENERIC_GPIO) expects platforms to have GPIO so we need to make sure vexpress always has this by selecting ARCH_REQUIRE_GPIOLIB. Without this change drivers like MMC fail to compile due to missing gpio definitions like: In file included from incl

Re: Fwd: [PATCH] vexpress: Setup IRQ affinity to A7s for TC2

Hi Tixy, On 09/01/13 15:25, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote: Subject:[PATCH] vexpress: Setup IRQ affinity to A7s for TC2 Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2013 14:20:19 + From: Punit Agrawal To: t...@linaro.org CC:

Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: Simplify __cpufreq_remove_dev()

On 9 January 2013 16:50, Viresh Kumar wrote: > [Probably need to simplify cpufreq_add_dev() too, but that can be done as next > step.] I have tried that too, it is also pushed at: https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/12/16/5 [Untested for now, will be doing it tomorrow] From: Viresh Kumar Date: Wed, 9

Re: Fwd: [PATCH] vexpress: Setup IRQ affinity to A7s for TC2

> Subject:[PATCH] vexpress: Setup IRQ affinity to A7s for TC2 > Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2013 14:20:19 + > From: Punit Agrawal > To: t...@linaro.org > > CC: linaro-...@linaro.org

Fwd: [PATCH] vexpress: Setup IRQ affinity to A7s for TC2

(Forward to the right address for linaro-dev) Original Message Subject:[PATCH] vexpress: Setup IRQ affinity to A7s for TC2 Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2013 14:20:19 + From: Punit Agrawal To: t...@linaro.org

Memory-hotplug status on ARM

Hi, all Does anybody know status of memory-hotplug feature in arm linux? Is it currently useable or being used in any of Linaro's builds? Any patches or clue will be appreciated. Thanks. Best regards, Guodong Xu ___ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@

[PATCH] cpufreq: Simplify __cpufreq_remove_dev()

__cpufreq_remove_dev() is called on multiple occasions: cpufreq_driver unregister and cpu removals. Current implementation of this routine is overly complex without much need. If the cpu to be removed is the policy->cpu, we remove the policy first and add all other cpus again from policy->cpus and