Re: [PATCH 2/2] cpufreq: governors: Remove code redundancy between governors

2013-02-01 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki
On Friday, February 01, 2013 08:08:42 AM Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 1 February 2013 08:01, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > Really!! I see bleeding edge as df0e3f4 and i don't see the $(subject) patch > > in it :) > > Well it might have been dropped by Rafael due to build error, Precisely. > which would b

Re: [PATCH 0/4] davinci: cpuidle - some cleanups

2013-02-01 Thread Len Brown
On 02/01/2013 08:48 AM, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > This patchset does some cleanup. It could have been folded in a single > patch but the review would have been less clean than splitting it into > small and trivial patches. > > The main purpose of this patch is to remove the usage of the driver_data

[QUESTION] : why is the exynos not using the TWD as local timers ?

2013-02-01 Thread Daniel Lezcano
Hi all, why is the exynos not using the TWD as local timers ? Probably already asked, but I was not able to find an detailed answer for that [1] Thanks -- Daniel [1] http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg218906.html -- Linaro.org │ Open source software for AR

[PATCH 3/4] davinci: cpuidle - remove the ops

2013-02-01 Thread Daniel Lezcano
With one function handling the idle state and a single variable, the usage of the davinci_ops is overkill. This patch removes these ops and simplify the code. Furthermore, the 'driver_data' field is no longer used, we have 1 of the 3 remaining user of this field removed. Signed-off-by: Daniel Le

[PATCH 1/4] davinci: cpuidle - use global variable for ddr2 flag

2013-02-01 Thread Daniel Lezcano
Replace the flag by a simple global boolean in the cpuidle.c. That will allow to cleanup the rest of the code right after, because the ops won't make sense anymore. Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano --- arch/arm/mach-davinci/cpuidle.c | 23 ++- 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+),

[PATCH 2/4] davinci: cpuidle - move code to prevent forward declaration

2013-02-01 Thread Daniel Lezcano
The patch is mindless, it just moves the idle function below in the file in order to prevent forward declaration in the next patch. Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano --- arch/arm/mach-davinci/cpuidle.c | 72 +++ 1 file changed, 36 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-)

[PATCH 4/4] davinci: cpuidle - remove useless initialization

2013-02-01 Thread Daniel Lezcano
The device->state_count is initialized in the cpuidle_register_device function. Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano --- arch/arm/mach-davinci/cpuidle.c |2 -- 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-davinci/cpuidle.c b/arch/arm/mach-davinci/cpuidle.c index 28cc8e8..144839b 10064

[PATCH 0/4] davinci: cpuidle - some cleanups

2013-02-01 Thread Daniel Lezcano
This patchset does some cleanup. It could have been folded in a single patch but the review would have been less clean than splitting it into small and trivial patches. The main purpose of this patch is to remove the usage of the driver_data field from the state_usage structure. Len Brown is doing

Re: Power aware scheduler - DVFS development question

2013-02-01 Thread Vincent Guittot
Hi Lukasz, I still need to get figures for the cover letter of the V3 of packing small tasks patches. Nevertheless, the patches series is available here: http://git.linaro.org/gitweb?p=people/vingu/kernel.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/sched-pack-small-tasks-v3 I will send the patchset to LKML as so

Re: [PATCH 3/3] cpufreq: Remove unnecessary use of policy->shared_type

2013-02-01 Thread Santosh Shilimkar
Viresh, On Friday 01 February 2013 02:22 PM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote: On Friday 01 February 2013 01:32 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote: On 1 February 2013 13:03, Santosh Shilimkar wrote: I am not talking about just notifiers. This is for external users who has subscribed for notifiers. The point is wh

Re: [PATCH 3/3] cpufreq: Remove unnecessary use of policy->shared_type

2013-02-01 Thread Santosh Shilimkar
On Friday 01 February 2013 01:32 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote: On 1 February 2013 13:03, Santosh Shilimkar wrote: I am not talking about just notifiers. This is for external users who has subscribed for notifiers. The point is whether the core CPUFReq gets updated without that flag for all affected C

Re: [PATCH 3/3] cpufreq: Remove unnecessary use of policy->shared_type

2013-02-01 Thread Viresh Kumar
On 1 February 2013 13:03, Santosh Shilimkar wrote: > I am not talking about just notifiers. This is for external users who > has subscribed for notifiers. The point is whether the core CPUFReq > gets updated without that flag for all affected CPU. Yes, its safe. Follow this thread, yesterday i ex