> So, I suggest that if neither Len nor Arjan reappear shortly, people can
> send CPUidle patches to me.
/me reappears
this series is in my tree now, and I'll be poking at it a bit tomorrow.
If everything is happy I'll send it for 3.4.
thanks,
-Len
___
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 7:10 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> Hi Rob,
>
> Robert Lee writes:
>
>> This patch series moves various functionality duplicated in platform
>> cpuidle drivers to the core cpuidle driver. Also, the platform irq
>> disabling was removed as it appears that all calls into
>> cpuid
On 03/21/2012 05:31 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 21, 2012, Amit Kucheria wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 12:48 AM, Kevin Hilman wrote:
>>> Arnd Bergmann writes:
>>>
On Tuesday 20 March 2012, Robert Lee wrote:
> This patch series moves various functionality duplic
On Tue, 20 Mar 2012, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> Looks like you never heard from anyone actively working on at91,
> shmobile, kirwood or davinci.
>
> I'm not sure we should merge those platform-specific changes without an
> ack from those platform maintainers.
Depends. There is a limit to how long yo
Arnd Bergmann writes:
> On Tuesday 20 March 2012, Kevin Hilman wrote:
>> Maybe it's time that drivers/cpuidle gets a maintainer. With lots of
>> discussions of scheduler changes that affect load estimation, I suspect
>> we're all going to have a bit of CPUidle work to do in the
>> not-so-distant
On Wed, 21 Mar 2012, Amit Kucheria wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 12:48 AM, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> > Maybe it's time that drivers/cpuidle gets a maintainer. With lots of
> > discussions of scheduler changes that affect load estimation, I suspect
> > we're all going to have a bit of CPUidle work
Hi Rob,
Robert Lee writes:
> This patch series moves various functionality duplicated in platform
> cpuidle drivers to the core cpuidle driver. Also, the platform irq
> disabling was removed as it appears that all calls into
> cpuidle_call_idle will have already called local_irq_disable().
>
>
Arnd Bergmann writes:
> On Tuesday 20 March 2012, Robert Lee wrote:
>> This patch series moves various functionality duplicated in platform
>> cpuidle drivers to the core cpuidle driver. Also, the platform irq
>> disabling was removed as it appears that all calls into
>> cpuidle_call_idle will
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 12:48 AM, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> Arnd Bergmann writes:
>
>> On Tuesday 20 March 2012, Robert Lee wrote:
>>> This patch series moves various functionality duplicated in platform
>>> cpuidle drivers to the core cpuidle driver. Also, the platform irq
>>> disabling was removed
On Tuesday 20 March 2012, Robert Lee wrote:
> This patch series moves various functionality duplicated in platform
> cpuidle drivers to the core cpuidle driver. Also, the platform irq
> disabling was removed as it appears that all calls into
> cpuidle_call_idle will have already called local_irq_
On Wednesday, March 21, 2012, Amit Kucheria wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 12:48 AM, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> > Arnd Bergmann writes:
> >
> >> On Tuesday 20 March 2012, Robert Lee wrote:
> >>> This patch series moves various functionality duplicated in platform
> >>> cpuidle drivers to the core cp
On Tuesday 20 March 2012, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> Maybe it's time that drivers/cpuidle gets a maintainer. With lots of
> discussions of scheduler changes that affect load estimation, I suspect
> we're all going to have a bit of CPUidle work to do in the
> not-so-distant future.
Hmm, according to th
12 matches
Mail list logo
