On Monday 29 October 2012 03:20 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
It looks like i need to describe more what
On 29 October 2012 10:40, Vincent Guittot wrote:
On 24 October 2012 17:17, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
Vincent,
Few comments/questions.
On Sunday 07 October 2012 01:13 PM, Vincent Guittot
ping
On 2 October 2012 15:16, Chander Kashyap wrote:
> This patch series popultes Register addresses, clock structure and
> gpio structure for Exynos4x12.
>
> Changes in v2:
> - Fixed the GPIO base address macro for exynos4x12_gpio_part3_get_nr
> in arch/arm/include/asm/arch-exy
On Monday 29 October 2012 06:42 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
On 24 October 2012 17:20, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
Vincent,
Few comments/questions.
On Sunday 07 October 2012 01:13 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
During sched_domain creation, we define a pack buddy CPU if available.
On a system that
On Monday 29 October 2012 06:57 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
On 24 October 2012 17:21, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
On Sunday 07 October 2012 01:13 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
Look for an idle CPU close the pack buddy CPU whenever possible.
s/close/close to
yes
The goal is to prevent the wak
On Monday 29 October 2012 06:58 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
On 24 October 2012 17:21, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
On Sunday 07 October 2012 01:13 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
The ARM platforms take advantage of packing small tasks on few cores.
This is true even when the cores of a cluster can't be
I found a lonely looking Lenovo laptop battery in BV1. I've left it at the
registration desk.
-- Michael
___
linaro-dev mailing list
linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org
http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
On Wednesday, October 31, 2012 05:44:44 PM Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> The discussion about having different cpus on the system with
> different latencies bring us to a first attemp by adding a
> pointer in the cpuidle_device to the states array.
>
> But as Rafael suggested, it would make more sense t
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 04:44:44PM +, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> The discussion about having different cpus on the system with
> different latencies bring us to a first attemp by adding a
> pointer in the cpuidle_device to the states array.
>
> But as Rafael suggested, it would make more sense to
