Hi Rob,
On 02/29/2012 08:41 AM, Robert Lee wrote:
> Make necessary changes to implement time keeping and irq enabling
> in the core cpuidle code. This will allow the removal of these
> functionalities from various platform cpuidle implementations whose
> timekeeping and irq enabling follows the
oid cpuidle_resume_and_unlock(void);
> extern int cpuidle_enable_device(struct cpuidle_device *dev);
> extern void cpuidle_disable_device(struct cpuidle_device *dev);
> -
> +extern int cpuidle_wrap_enter(struct cpuidle_device *dev,
> + struct cpuidle_driver *drv, int index,
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
Hi Daniel,
On 06/08/2012 09:32 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> We have the state index passed as parameter to the 'enter' function.
> Most of the drivers assign their 'enter' functions several times in
> the cpuidle_state structure, as we have the index, we can delegate
> to the driver to handle thei
On 06/18/2012 02:10 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> A few weeks ago, Peter De Schrijver proposed a patch [1] to allow per
> cpu latencies. We had a discussion about this patchset because it
> reverse the modifications Deepthi did some months ago [2] and we may
> want to provide a dif
Hi Daniel,
On 07/25/2012 04:15 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> This variable is only used in the in processor_driver.c.
> This patch reduces the scope of the variable by moving it
> to this file.
>
This is true after applying your second patch .
Maybe you can check the sequencing of patches in the
ction overrides this pointer.
>
May be add some more explanation and pointers to previous discussions,
as stated on the cover in the patch series.
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano
Acked-by: Deepthi Dharwar
> ---
> drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c | 17 +
> in
