Re: [PATCH 1/3] cpufreq: Manage only online cpus

2013-01-11 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki
On Sunday, December 16, 2012 11:20:08 AM Viresh Kumar wrote: > cpufreq core doesn't manage offline cpus and if driver->init() has returned > mask including offline cpus, it may result in unwanted behavior by cpufreq > core > or governors. > > We need to get only online cpus in this mask. There ar

Re: [PATCH 1/3] cpufreq: Manage only online cpus

2013-01-04 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki
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

Re: [PATCH 1/3] cpufreq: Manage only online cpus

2013-01-03 Thread Viresh Kumar
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

Re: [PATCH 1/3] cpufreq: Manage only online cpus

2013-01-03 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki
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".

Re: [PATCH 1/3] cpufreq: Manage only online cpus

2013-01-02 Thread Viresh Kumar
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". Otherwise, > I don't quite see the reason. I don't know how much people test

Re: [PATCH 1/3] cpufreq: Manage only online cpus

2013-01-02 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki
On Wednesday, January 02, 2013 11:59:57 AM Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 16 December 2012 19:07, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > On 16 December 2012 18:34, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > >> Well, this series makes sense to me, but I'd like to hear what the other > >> people > >> think. > > > > That sounds gre

Re: [PATCH 1/3] cpufreq: Manage only online cpus

2013-01-01 Thread Viresh Kumar
On 16 December 2012 19:07, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 16 December 2012 18:34, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> Well, this series makes sense to me, but I'd like to hear what the other >> people >> think. > > That sounds great :) > > Some more information for others about how i reached to these issues

Re: [PATCH 1/3] cpufreq: Manage only online cpus

2012-12-16 Thread Viresh Kumar
On 16 December 2012 18:34, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Sunday, December 16, 2012 11:20:08 AM Viresh Kumar wrote: >> cpufreq core doesn't manage offline cpus and if driver->init() has returned >> mask including offline cpus, it may result in unwanted behavior by cpufreq >> core >> or governors.

Re: [PATCH 1/3] cpufreq: Manage only online cpus

2012-12-16 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki
On Sunday, December 16, 2012 11:20:08 AM Viresh Kumar wrote: > cpufreq core doesn't manage offline cpus and if driver->init() has returned > mask including offline cpus, it may result in unwanted behavior by cpufreq > core > or governors. > > We need to get only online cpus in this mask. There ar

[PATCH 1/3] cpufreq: Manage only online cpus

2012-12-15 Thread Viresh Kumar
cpufreq core doesn't manage offline cpus and if driver->init() has returned mask including offline cpus, it may result in unwanted behavior by cpufreq core or governors. We need to get only online cpus in this mask. There are two places to fix this mask, cpufreq core and cpufreq driver. It makes s