With the inclusion of following patches:
9f4eb10 cpufreq: conservative: call dbs_check_cpu only when necessary
772b4b1 cpufreq: ondemand: call dbs_check_cpu only when necessary
code redundancy is introduced again. Get rid of it.
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar
---
drivers/cpufreq
CPUFREQ_GOV_START/STOP are called only once for all policy->cpus and hence we
don't need to adapt cpufreq_governor_dbs() routine for multiple calls.
So, this patch removes dbs_data->enable field entirely. And rearrange code a
bit.
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar
---
Hi Fabio,
I have fi
On 31 January 2013 22:58, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> CPUFREQ_GOV_START/STOP are called only once for all policy->cpus and hence we
> don't need to adapt cpufreq_governor_dbs() routine for multiple calls.
>
> So, this patch removes dbs_data->enable field entirely. And rearrange c
On 1 February 2013 04:21, Fabio Baltieri wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 11:23:54PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> This time I was *really* confused as to what patches I was supposed to take,
>> from whom and in what order, so I applied a number of them in the order given
>> by patchwork. Th
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, which would
be fixed by:
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c
b/driv
On 1 February 2013 00:14, Fabio Baltieri wrote:
> Hello Viresh, thanks for getting this done... looks much cleaner now!
>
> I tested both patches on my ux500 setup (dual Cortex-A9) and it seems to
> run correctly on both CPU load changes and CPU hotplug, so:
>
> Tested-by: Fabio Baltieri
Thanks.
On 31 January 2013 18:36, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thursday, January 31, 2013 12:06:13 PM Fabio Baltieri wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 04:23:06PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> > As discussed over IRC, you will fix following in few days:
>> > - Code
nstalled.
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar
---
drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 4
drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c | 24
include/linux/cpufreq.h| 1 +
3 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers
On 1 February 2013 11:12, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> Currently, whenever governor->governor() is called for CPUFRREQ_GOV_START
> event
> we reset few tunables of governor. Which isn't correct, as this routine is
> called for every cpu hot-[un]plugging event. We should actually
With following patch, we need to set policy->cpus with mask of all possible cpus
and policy->related_cpus would be filled automatically by the core.
commit 4948b355e90080cd5ec1e91189f65a01e4186ef2
Author: Viresh Kumar
Date: Tue Jan 29 14:39:08 2013 +
cpufreq: Simplify cpufreq_a
non-ACPI systems are filling this field by mistake, which makes its usage
confusing. Lets clean it.
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar
Cc: Linus Walleij
Cc: Stephen Warren
Cc: Shawn Guo
Cc: Santosh Shilimkar
---
arch/arm/mach-tegra/cpu-tegra.c | 1 -
drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-cpu0.c | 1 -
driv
req core.
commit 4948b355e90080cd5ec1e91189f65a01e4186ef2
Author: Viresh Kumar
Date: Tue Jan 29 14:39:08 2013 +
cpufreq: Simplify cpufreq_add_dev()
Current Tegra driver fills only ->related_cpus and not ->cpus, which looks to be
incorrect. Lets fix it.
Signed-off-by: Viresh Ku
On 1 February 2013 12:10, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> For multicore SoC's, with cores sharing clock line, we are required to set
> policy->cpus and policy->related_cpus with mask of cpus.
>
> With following patch, we need to set policy->cpus with mask of all possible
> cp
On 1 February 2013 12:10, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> policy->shared_type field was added only for SoCs with ACPI support:
>
> commit 3b2d99429e3386b6e2ac949fc72486509c8bbe36
> Author: Venkatesh Pallipadi
> Date: Wed Dec 14 15:05:00 2005 -0500
>
> P-state software co
On 1 February 2013 12:10, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> With following patch, we need to set policy->cpus with mask of all possible
> cpus
> and policy->related_cpus would be filled automatically by the core.
>
> commit 4948b355e90080cd5ec1e91189f65a01e4186ef2
> Author: Viresh
On 1 February 2013 09:22, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 1 February 2013 00:14, Fabio Baltieri wrote:
>> As a sidenote, I noticed just now that since:
>>
>> bc92bea cpufreq: Notify governors when cpus are hot-[un]plugged
>>
>> governor's sampling_rate gets res
On 1 February 2013 12:17, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
> I haven't looked at the cpufreq code recently but remember
> that it was needed to ensure that all the CPU which
> share clock/voltage gets updated (affected cpus) on
> freq change. The CPUs which needs SW co-ordination, should
> have this flag
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
ernor type, but with different tunables.
This patchset is inclined towards fixing this issue.
Viresh Kumar (4):
cpufreq: Don't check cpu_online(policy->cpu)
cpufreq: stats: Get rid of CPUFREQ_STATDEVICE_ATTR
cpufreq: Add per policy governor-init/exit infrastructure
cpufreq: governo
Macro "CPUFREQ_STATDEVICE_ATTR" is defined local to cpufreq_stats.c file and is
almost a copy of the generic version present in cpufreq.h file. Lets use the
generic version instead.
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar
---
drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_stats.c | 18 ++
1 file
policy->cpu or cpus in policy->cpus can't be offline anymore. And so we don't
need to check if they are online or not.
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar
---
drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 17 +++--
drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c | 2 +-
drivers/cpufreq/cpu
ernor type, but with different tunables.
This patch is inclined towards providing this infrastructure. Because we are
required to allocate governor's resources dynamically now, we must do it at
policy creation and end. And so got CPUFREQ_GOV_POLICY_INIT/EXIT.
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar
ernor type, but with different tunables.
This patch uses the infrastructure provided by earlier patch and implements
init/exit routines for ondemand and conservative governors.
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar
---
drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 4 -
drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conse
On 31 January 2013 07:56, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> With the recent changes in cpufreq core, we just need to set mask of all
> possible cpus into policy->cpus. Rest would be done by core.
>
> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar
> ---
> drivers/cpufreq/exynos-cpufreq.c | 14 +--
On 4 February 2013 17:47, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> Well, [1-2/4] are things I can take for v3.9 no problem. The other two I'd
> wait for the next cycle to be honest. We already have 30+ cpufreq patches
> scheduled for v3.9 and some of them quite subtle for that matter.
To be honest, i wanted
On 4 February 2013 18:02, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 04, 2013 at 05:54:18PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> One important point i would like to highlight is: governors directory
>> would be present in cpu/cpu*/cpufreq/ now instead of cpu/cpufreq/.
>
> Uh, hold on,
On 4 February 2013 18:34, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 04, 2013 at 06:24:19PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> What i believe is, the place where this directory was present earlier
>> (cpu/cpufreq/) wasn't the right place. Everything else was in
>> cpu/cpu*/cpufre
On 4 February 2013 19:06, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 04, 2013 at 06:55:25PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> That's not completely true. There lies cpufreq directory in cpu/cpu*/
>> too, where we have per policy stuff in cpu/cpu*/, like policy tunables
>> and s
On 4 February 2013 19:39, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 04, 2013 at 07:28:16PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> All files which are directly present in cpu/cpu*/cpufreq/ folder. I am
>> not talking about governor tunables but policy tunables. Things like
>> scaling_[mi
On 4 February 2013 20:35, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 04, 2013 at 07:51:33PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> We correlate things with cpus rather than policies and so the current
>> directory structure of cpu/cpu*/cpufreq/*** is the best suited ones.
>
> Ok, show m
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 10:20 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 04, 2013 at 09:07:11PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> └── ondemand
>> ├── sampling_rate
>> ├── up_threshold
>> └── ignore_nice
>
> So this is adding the current governor as a per-cp
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 6:37 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, February 04, 2013 04:45:11 PM Nathan Zimmer wrote:
>> I am noticing the cpufreq_driver_lock is quite hot.
>> On an idle 512 system perf shows me most of the system time is spent on this
>> lock. This is quite signifigant as top
On 4 February 2013 19:06, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 04, 2013 at 06:55:25PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> Its not only for multicluster system, but a system where multiple cpus
>> have separate clock control and hence multiple policy structures.
>
> What are th
On 5 February 2013 14:45, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 12:50:31PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> > I think this is cleaner but whatever - I don't care that much. My
>> > only strong concern is that this thing should be a Kconfig option and
>>
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> I actually don't agree with that, becuase the Nathan's apprach shows the
> reasoning that leads to the RCU introduction quite clearly. So if you
> don't have technical problems with the patchset, I'm going to take it as is.
Great!!
Okay
On 5 February 2013 15:57, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> Are you kidding me? You're simply not reading what I'm saying to you:
> "... should be optional and selectable in Kconfig so that systems which
> don't need that, don't have to see or use it." Because on those systems
> it doesn't apply.
>
> How a
On 5 February 2013 16:34, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> Here's an even cleaner way:
>
> platform_driver:
> init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
> {
> ...
>
> add_additional_sysfs_entries(policy);
>
> ...
> }
>
> ...
>
> static void add_additional_sysfs_entries(struct cpufreq_poli
On 5 February 2013 16:49, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 04:42:23PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> Tricky part is the name of this routine: add_additional_sysfs_entries().
>
> Now you're just being silly - this is just an example how to do it. If
> you
On 5 February 2013 17:02, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 04:56:03PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> Just some kind of indication from platform driver is required about
>> how/where it wants its governor directory to be present.
>
> The indicatio
On 5 February 2013 18:52, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 05:54:57PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:q
>> This indication isn't enough. On a single image solution, we need to
>> identify the system which needs support for multiple policies and i
>> still feel
On 4 February 2013 17:08, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> Currently, there can't be multiple instances of single governor_type. If we
> have
> a multi-package system, where we have multiple instances of struct policy (per
> package), we can't have multiple instances of same governor.
On 5 February 2013 21:51, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> commit 15b5548c9ccfb8088270f7574710d9d67edfe33b
> Author: Viresh Kumar
> Date: Tue Feb 5 21:29:05 2013 +0530
>
> cpufreq: Make governors directory sysfs location based on
> have_multiple_policies
>
> Until now
On 6 February 2013 15:38, Amit Kucheria wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 3:28 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> I have pushed the complete patchset here:
>>
>> http://git.linaro.org/gitweb?p=people/vireshk/linux.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/cpufreq-updates
>>
>
> Vires
On 4 February 2013 17:52, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 31 January 2013 07:56, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> With the recent changes in cpufreq core, we just need to set mask of all
>> possible cpus into policy->cpus. Rest would be done by core.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kum
On the lines of macro: lock_policy_rwsem, we can create another macro for
unlock_policy_rwsem. Lets do it.
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar
---
drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 24 +---
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers
them in my for-rafael branch at:
http://git.linaro.org/gitweb?p=people/vireshk/linux.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/for-rafael
@Artem & Valdis: Please test them and reply with your Tested-by's (in case they
work :) ).
Viresh Kumar (4):
cpufreq: governors: Fix WARN_ON() for multi
Because the sibling cpu of any online cpu is identified very early in
cpufreq_add_dev(), below code is never executed. And so can be removed.
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar
---
drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 17 ++---
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers
against their principle
(present before their definition) at various places. This patch is an attempt to
fix their use.
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar
---
drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 79 +++
1 file changed, 45 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers
vernor.
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar
---
drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 6 --
drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c | 32 +++-
2 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
index ccc598a..3
On 7 February 2013 18:35, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> I think they all make sense, so applied to linux-next.
>
> I would prefer not to make any more changes to cpufreq before v3.9 from now
> on,
> except for fixes and maybe the Drik's patchset that I kind of scheduled for
Dirk :)
> merging into
On 8 February 2013 04:37, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thursday, February 07, 2013 06:52:20 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> On 7 February 2013 18:35, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> > I think they all make sense, so applied to linux-next.
>> >
>> > I would prefer not
On 8 February 2013 05:03, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> I should have done that before, sorry about it.
>
> Can you please rework this series on top of linux-pm.git/pm-cpufreq and
> try to avoid introducing new issues this time?
Even i want to do that, but when i fetch your repo i don't see all appl
On 8 February 2013 01:09, Artem Savkov wrote:
> Tested out linux-pm.git/linux-next with this patches pulled. It seems
> that my systemd-sleep issue is fixed, however there is a new 'sleeping
> in invalid context' bug during boot:
>
> [ 12.736484] BUG: sleeping function called from invalid contex
ufreq_driver->ops about calling routines which can sleep. And thus
we shoudln't
have locks around any of these. I have got a patch for it, that i
would fold-back into
the original patch that introduced locking fixes (attached too for testing):
From: Viresh Kumar
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2013 10
On 8 February 2013 05:03, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> I should have done that before, sorry about it.
np
> Can you please rework this series on top of linux-pm.git/pm-cpufreq and
> try to avoid introducing new issues this time?
Sorry for this. I didn't got any such issues on my system and i trie
On 8 February 2013 18:02, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> So as I said, please rework the fixes on top of linux-pm.git/pm-cpufreq.
I already did. Please check for-rafael branch
> Moreover, I'd very much prefer it if you fixed the problems introduced by
> b8eed8a "cpufreq: Simplify __cpufreq_remove_de
On 9 February 2013 05:38, Dirk Brandewie wrote:
> On 02/08/2013 03:56 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>
>> On Friday, February 08, 2013 09:02:37 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>>
>>> On Friday, February 08, 2013 08:06:52 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
>>>>
>
On 11 February 2013 02:44, Francesco Lavra wrote:
> dbs_data->tuners is never freed, which means there is a memory leak
> across CPUFREQ_GOV_POLICY_INIT and CPUFREQ_GOV_POLICY_EXIT events.
>
> The same goes for the ondemand governor.
Thanks for pointing out. Would be fixed in next version.
_
On 11 February 2013 09:46, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 11 February 2013 02:44, Francesco Lavra
> wrote:
>> dbs_data->tuners is never freed, which means there is a memory leak
>> across CPUFREQ_GOV_POLICY_INIT and CPUFREQ_GOV_POLICY_EXIT events.
>>
>> The sa
On 8 February 2013 23:35, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> The nr_busy_cpus field of the sched_group_power is sometime different from 0
> whereas the platform is fully idle. This serie fixes 3 use cases:
> - when some CPUs enter idle state while booting all CPUs
> - when a CPU is unplug and/or replug
A
have_multiple_policies is required by platforms having multiple clock-domains
for cpus, i.e. supporting multiple policies for cpus. This patch adds in a
Kconfig option for enabling execution of this code.
Reported-by: Borislav Petkov
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar
---
drivers/cpufreq/Kconfig | 3
eplied :)
I still want to have your opinion on the same.
Viresh Kumar (4):
cpufreq: Add per policy governor-init/exit infrastructure
cpufreq: governor: Implement per policy instances of governors
cpufreq: Add Kconfig option to enable/disable have_multiple_policies
cpufreq: Get rid of &q
ernor type, but with different tunables.
This patch is inclined towards providing this infrastructure. Because we are
required to allocate governor's resources dynamically now, we must do it at
policy creation and end. And so got CPUFREQ_GOV_POLICY_INIT/EXIT.
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar
We don't need to keep two structures for file attributes, global_attr and
freq_attr. Lets use freq_attr only for cpufreq core and drivers.
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar
---
drivers/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c | 9 -
drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c | 30 +++---
in
ernor type, but with different tunables.
This patch uses the infrastructure provided by earlier patch and implements
init/exit routines for ondemand and conservative governors.
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar
---
drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 6 -
drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conse
sters in pm notifier
sched: fix arch_get_fast_and_slow_cpus to get logical cpumask correctly
Thomas Gleixner (1):
genirq: Add default affinity mask command line option
Viresh Kumar (7):
configs: Add config fragments for big LITTLE MP
linaro/configs: Update big LITTLE MP f
eet Gupta
> 2. Sumit Semwal
> 3. Santosh Shilimkar
> 4. Srivatsa S. Bhat
> 5. Viresh Kumar
> 6. Vinod Koul
> 7. Rajendra Nayak
>
> Location:
> ARM Office, Outer Ring Road(Thanks to Viresh)
> http://www.arm.com/about/offices/bangalore.php
>
> Pre
On 17 February 2013 11:11, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> I have booked a room from 11:00 AM to 12:00 PM : 1 hr.
>
> I will see if i can request it from 10:30 to 11:00 also, in case the other
> party
> accepts it :)
>
> I would request all of us to reach ARM by 10:30 AM. So, that w
Applied here:
http://git.linaro.org/gitweb?p=arm/big.LITTLE/mp.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/power-aware-scheduling-v5
On 18 February 2013 10:37, Alex Shi wrote:
> Since the simplification of fork/exec/wake balancing has much arguments,
> I removed that part in the patch set.
>
> This patch set im
On 17 February 2013 03:13, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
> Merged into llct-20130217.0
Hi Andrey,
Because 3.8 is released today, do you want this release to be based of
that instead of an RC release? It wouldn't be much work for everybody
i believe.
___
lin
Hi Guys,
I really don't know whom to direct this mail to and hence the wide spread.
Problem: When we send a mail to kernel mailing lists with linaro-dev
or linaro-kernel
in cc, and we get replies to those mails, sometimes the mails from
outside people
doesn't reach us back on linaro mailing lists
On 20 February 2013 11:00, Amit Kucheria wrote:
> Yes, the moderator lets these emails in and whitelists known upstream
> developers upon request. Please let Anmar or Philip know any such
> email addresses.
Okay. I got this.
But what i requested was a bit more than that... In current case somebo
On 20 February 2013 14:06, Philip Colmer wrote:
> I'm not entirely comfortable with blindly white-listing anyone who posts to
> linaro-dev with something that doesn't look like spam, for several reasons:
>
> 1. That is not a great way to run a moderated mailing list.
> 2. IT aren't going to be in
On 20 February 2013 16:19, Wookey wrote:
> +++ Philip Colmer [2013-02-20 08:36 +]:
>>I'm not entirely comfortable with blindly white-listing anyone who posts
>>to linaro-dev with something that doesn't look like spam, for several
>>reasons:
>>1. That is not a great way to run a
On 18 February 2013 23:50, Serge Broslavsky wrote:
> On 18.02.13 12:20 -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
>> For the record, I think what Peter is suggesting is reasonable. There
>> must be better ways for people to find out what Linaro is participating in
>> other than scaring them away from linaro-dev
On 21 February 2013 16:34, Amit Kucheria wrote:
> I don't have a strong preference one way or another about switching
> from linaro-dev to linaro-kernel.
>
> Don't forget to update
> https://wiki.linaro.org/Resources/HowTo/Git/GitSendEmail
Done.
___
l
On 22 February 2013 05:05, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, February 11, 2013 01:20:00 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> This patch is inclined towards providing this infrastructure. Because we are
>> required to allocate governor's resources dynamically now, we must do it at
&g
On 22 February 2013 05:23, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, February 11, 2013 01:20:02 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> +config CPU_FREQ_HAVE_MULTIPLE_POLICIES
>> + bool
>> +
>
> So I suppose some architectures will select this, right?
Yes. And they have to enable
On 22 February 2013 05:15, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> Why did you change all of the lines of this macro instead of changing just the
> one line you needed to change?
I didn't like the indentation used within the macro. So did it.
> Please don't do that.
Okay.
__
On 22 February 2013 07:51, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Friday, February 22, 2013 07:38:12 AM Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> No. These are used atleast for ondemand & conservative.
>
> They will be after the next patch, you mean? :-)
> Well, it appeared so from t
On 11 February 2013 13:20, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> diff --git a/include/linux/cpufreq.h b/include/linux/cpufreq.h
> #define CPUFREQ_PRECHANGE (0)
> @@ -183,11 +197,10 @@ static inline unsigned long cpufreq_scale(unsigned long
> old, u_int div, u_int mu
> #define CPUFREQ_G
or-3.10 branch:
--
commit 4d7296fb64f2353aafad5104f0a046466d0f4ea9
Author: Viresh Kumar
Date: Fri Feb 22 07:56:31 2013 +0530
fixup! cpufreq: Add per policy governor-init/exit infrastructure
---
include/linux/cpufreq.h | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a
On 22 February 2013 08:03, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Friday, February 22, 2013 07:47:44 AM Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> On 22 February 2013 05:15, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> > Why did you change all of the lines of this macro instead of changing just
>> > the
>>
On 22 February 2013 07:59, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Friday, February 22, 2013 07:44:23 AM Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> If you don't like this one then we can add another entry
>> into struct policy like: gov_sysfs_parent.
>
> I don't know. This is going to look kin
On 11 February 2013 13:19, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> This is targetted for 3.10-rc1 or linux-next just after the merge window.
Hi Rafael,
I have pushed this patch again with the modifications/fixups i posted:
cpufreq-for-3.10
Also i have swapped patch 3 & 4, in case you decide to drop that
On 28 February 2013 09:42, Vikas Sajjan wrote:
> Add display-timing node parsing to drm fimd and depends on
> the display helper patchset at
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/2013-January/033998.html
>
> It also adds pinctrl support for drm fimd.
Hi Vikas,
Can you please keep lin
Hi Guys,
There was mail chain earlier which has discussed this earlier but not sure if
everybody got the final conclusion or not (that's why we are still
posting on linaro-dev).
Please embed linaro-kernel instead of linaro-dev in all your scripts
that you use for
sending patches.
Thanks in Advan
Hi Guys,
Below are hangout upstreams of Scheduler Internals by Vincent Guittot
done in LCA13.
We have got another version of this recording that is done by some
other cameras, but
its size was 30 GB and so hard to upstream. In case you need that
please contact me.
Day 1: http://www.youtube.com/w
perf: set cpu affinity for the irqs correctly
ARM: perf: remove spaces in CPU PMU names
ARM: perf: save/restore pmu registers in pm notifier
sched: fix arch_get_fast_and_slow_cpus to get logical cpumask correctly
Thomas Gleixner (1):
genirq: Add default affinity mask comman
On 27 November 2012 19:17, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-11-06 at 16:08 +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> diff --git a/kernel/timer.c b/kernel/timer.c
>> @@ -729,6 +730,12 @@ __mod_timer(struct timer_list *timer, unsigned long
>> expires,
>>
>> bas
On 26 March 2013 22:52, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> Would it be possible for you to merge in 'idlenocb.2013.03.18b' (based
> on v3.9-rc2) (or newer) from
> 'git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/paulmck/linux-rcu.git'
> into your big.LITTLE MP tree? I talked to Paul McKenney about this and
>
Hi Zhoujie,
On 28 March 2013 18:42, zhoujie wu wrote:
> I found a kernel panic case caused by interactive governor when we
> enabled both hotplug governor and linked cpufreq features.
>
> Below is the background and root cause,
> We are using the latest interactive governor on dual ca9 smp system
On 29 March 2013 20:19, zhoujie wu wrote:
> I have synced the governor_interactive.c from the latest linaro code branch
> integration-android-vexpress that release at Feb.2013.
I never said i have changes in interactive governor as i can't push
that for 3.9.
It isn't mainlined yet :)
The issue w
Hi John,
I have been struggling since some time "who creates source directory
in my kernel tree"?
And i thought to clean up the mess today and found running
merge_config.sh creates
it.. And it isn't cleaned up even by running make mrproper...
PS: I am not using O=../ option.
Hi Guys,
[All this is not yet mainlined and is WIP]
Linaro and ARM are developing Linux solutions for big LITTLE Architecture. And
I maintain all the stable stuff on this here: [1] and this gets pulled
in by Andrey for
every linux-linaro release.
[1] by itself isn't much usable as it doesn't hav
On 3 April 2013 21:41, John Stultz wrote:
> On 04/02/2013 11:26 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>>
>> Hi John,
>>
>> I have been struggling since some time "who creates source directory
>> in my kernel tree"?
>> And i thought to clean up the mess today a
On 3 April 2013 21:38, Young, Chad wrote:
> I am looking for the kernel source 3.5.0-rc7 for the ARM versatile express
> system, does anyone know where I can find it?
Look for this tag: ll-20120712.0, here:
https://git.linaro.org/gitweb?p=kernel/linux-linaro-tracking.git;a=summary
On 3 April 2013 22:53, John Stultz wrote:
> Huh. I'm totally unfamiliar with this.
>
> Looks like when adding support for the -O option, if its not used, we end up
> passing -O=. to make, which generates the unnecessary source softlink.
>
> Does the attached patch fix it for you?
Yes it does.. Th
On 5 April 2013 00:18, John Stultz wrote:
> Yea, I'll push it upstream and send it to Andrey for Linux Linaro. Thanks
> for the testing.
There are more problems than this i believe...
Everytime i run merge_config.sh even with O=../ option, i have to run
make mrproper to clean other stuff otherwi
On 5 April 2013 07:58, John Stultz wrote:
> On 04/04/2013 06:34 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> Everytime i run merge_config.sh even with O=../ option, i have to run
>
> O=../ ?
Hmm.. when we compile kernel we can give O=../output-folder as an
parameter and so image/binaries wil
301 - 400 of 467 matches
Mail list logo
