lose the values which probably took time to be
measured, the table is converted into a comment with an array
description.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano
Reviewed-by: Jean Pihet
---
arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51.c | 38 +---
arch/arm/mach-omap2/cpuidle34xx.c
Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano
Reviewed-by: Jean Pihet
Reviewed-by: Santosh Shilimkar
---
arch/arm/mach-omap2/cpuidle44xx.c |2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/cpuidle44xx.c
b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/cpuidle44xx.c
index cdd7932..fb0f76e
Use the new cpuidle API and define in the driver the states.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano
Reviewed-by: Jean Pihet
---
arch/arm/mach-omap2/cpuidle34xx.c | 86 +---
1 files changed, 60 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2
We initialized it at compile time, no need to do that at boot
time.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano
Reviewed-by: Jean Pihet
Reviewed-by: Santosh Shilimkar
---
arch/arm/mach-omap2/cpuidle44xx.c | 26 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
diff --git a
runs, during 120 secs, small
chunks of busy loops and idle loops. When there is something wrong
with the cpuidle driver, this program often triggers the problem which
results in a kernel panic, tasks hung warning or system hang.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano
---
.gitignore |5
On 04/05/2012 02:03 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
This patch provides a couple of tests for cpuidle in addition with
a small program which behaves to sollicitate the cpuidle drivers
especially when both cores needs to reach the same C-states.
The program forks as many online processors present on
On 04/16/2012 02:00 PM, Amit Kucheria wrote:
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 2:05 PM, Daniel Lezcano
wrote:
On 04/05/2012 02:03 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
This patch provides a couple of tests for cpuidle in addition with
a small program which behaves to sollicitate the cpuidle drivers
especially
:
Daniel and Amit,
I am so sorry for not response this quickly, because I am busy with the
thermal driver now.
Anyway I will try to test and merge this work today.
On 16 April 2012 23:17, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
On 04/16/2012 02:00 PM, Amit Kucheria wrote:
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 2:05 PM, Daniel
we have the guarantee, it won't be wake up.
It is up to the prcmu firmware to recouple the gic automatically
after the power state mode is selected.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano
---
arch/arm/mach-ux500/Makefile |1 +
arch/arm/mach-ux500/cpuidle.c |
On 04/10/2012 12:37 AM, Kevin Hilman wrote:
Daniel Lezcano writes:
The cpuidle API allows to declare statically the states in the driver
structure. Let's use it.
We do no longer need the fill_cstate function called at runtime and
by the way adding more instructions at boot time.
Signe
On 04/10/2012 01:13 AM, Kevin Hilman wrote:
Daniel Lezcano writes:
With the previous changes all the states are valid, except
the last state which can be handled by decreasing the number
of states.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano
Reviewed-by: Jean Pihet
---
[ ... ]
if
On 04/10/2012 01:23 AM, Kevin Hilman wrote:
Daniel Lezcano writes:
This patchset makes some cleanup on these cpuidle drivers
and consolidate the code across both architecture.
Thanks for this really nice cleanup. I have some comments on specific
patches, but here's some general com
On 04/10/2012 12:56 AM, Kevin Hilman wrote:
Daniel Lezcano writes:
We are storing the 'omap4_idle_data' in the private data field
of the cpuidle device. As we are using this variable only in this file,
that does not really make sense. Let's use the global variable d
On 04/19/2012 02:46 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
This patch adds the cpuidle driver for the ux500 SoC.
The boards saves 12mA with these states. It is based on the latest
cpuidle consolidation from Robert Lee.
The cpu can go to retention only if the other core is in WFI.
If the other cpu is in WFI
On 04/23/2012 09:57 AM, Rickard Andersson wrote:
Should not the driver be located in the 'drivers/cpuidle/' directory?
We had a discussion about moving the cpuidle drivers to this directory
but there are too much dependencies between the arch specific code and
the drivers and Russell thinks t
On 04/19/2012 03:58 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
On 04/10/2012 12:37 AM, Kevin Hilman wrote:
Daniel Lezcano writes:
The cpuidle API allows to declare statically the states in the driver
structure. Let's use it.
We do no longer need the fill_cstate function called at runtime and
by th
On 04/23/2012 07:08 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote:
Daniel Lezcano writes:
On 04/19/2012 03:58 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
On 04/10/2012 12:37 AM, Kevin Hilman wrote:
Daniel Lezcano writes:
The cpuidle API allows to declare statically the states in the driver
structure. Let's use it.
We
On 04/24/2012 11:09 AM, Linus Walleij wrote:
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 7:52 AM, Daniel Lezcano
wrote:
Hi Linus,
can you consider this patch for inclusion, please ?
Yepps, patch applied with Vicent's ACK.
Great, thanks !
--
<http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source s
We do not longer need this table as we defined the values
in the driver states.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano
Reviewed-by: Jean Pihet
Reviewed-by: Santosh Shilimkar
---
arch/arm/mach-omap2/cpuidle44xx.c | 11 +--
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch
Reduce the scope of the omap3_idle_data to the file as it is only used
in cpuidle34xx.c.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano
Reviewed-by: Jean Pihet
---
arch/arm/mach-omap2/cpuidle34xx.c |2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/cpuidle34xx.c
b
Add the static declaration for the omap4_idle_data variable because its scope
is in the file only.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano
Reviewed-by: Jean Pihet
Reviewed-by: Santosh Shilimkar
---
arch/arm/mach-omap2/cpuidle44xx.c |2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git
We initialized it at compile time, no need to do that at boot
time.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano
Reviewed-by: Jean Pihet
Reviewed-by: Santosh Shilimkar
---
arch/arm/mach-omap2/cpuidle44xx.c | 24
1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch
We initialize the omap4_idle_data variable at compile time allowing us
to remove in the next patch the initialization done at boot time.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano
Reviewed-by: Jean Pihet
Reviewed-by: Santosh Shilimkar
---
arch/arm/mach-omap2/cpuidle44xx.c | 21 ++---
1
lose the values which probably took time to be
measured, the table is converted into a comment with an array
description.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano
Reviewed-by: Jean Pihet
---
arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51.c | 38 +---
arch/arm/mach-omap2/cpuidle34xx.c
We are storing the 'omap4_idle_data' in the private data field
of the cpuidle device. As we are using this variable only in this file,
that does not really make sense. Let's use the global variable directly.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano
Reviewed-by: Jean Pihet
Reviewed-by: Sa
ation at
startup too.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano
Reviewed-by: Jean Pihet
---
arch/arm/mach-omap2/cpuidle34xx.c | 63 +++-
1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 57 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/cpuidle34xx.c
b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/cpuidle34xx.c
in
The cpuidle API allows to declare statically the states in the driver
structure. Let's use it.
We do no longer need the fill_cstate function called at runtime and
by the way adding more instructions at boot time.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano
Reviewed-by: Jean Pihet
Reviewed-by: Sa
The errata check is done in the next_valid_state function, no need to check
that in the omap3_idle_init function.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano
---
arch/arm/mach-omap2/cpuidle34xx.c | 10 --
1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2
* Fixed OMAP4_NUM_STATES going back and forth in the patchset
* Removed erratum check at init time
V2 :
* Fixed a couple of typos in the patch description
V1 : Initial Post
Daniel Lezcano (18):
ARM: OMAP4: cpuidle - Remove unused valid field
ARM: OMAP4: cpuidle - Declare the states
Initialize the omap3_idle_data array at compile time, that will allow
to remove the initialization at boot time.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano
Reviewed-by: Jean Pihet
---
arch/arm/mach-omap2/cpuidle34xx.c | 37 -
1 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 5
With the previous changes all the states are valid, except
the last state which can be handled by decreasing the number
of states.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano
Reviewed-by: Jean Pihet
---
arch/arm/mach-omap2/cpuidle34xx.c | 11 ++-
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 9 deletions
Simplify the indentation by removing the useless 'else' statement.
Remove the first loop for the 'idx' search as we have it already
with the 'index' passed as parameter.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano
Reviewed-by: Jean Pihet
---
arch/arm/m
The 'valid' field is never used in the code, let's remove it.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano
Reviewed-by: Jean Pihet
Reviewed-by: Santosh Shilimkar
---
arch/arm/mach-omap2/cpuidle44xx.c |9 +++--
1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch
and check the powerdomain lookup is successful.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano
Reviewed-by: Jean Pihet
---
arch/arm/mach-omap2/cpuidle34xx.c |5 -
1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/cpuidle34xx.c
b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/cpuidle34xx.c
index
Use the new cpuidle API and define in the driver the states.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano
Reviewed-by: Jean Pihet
---
arch/arm/mach-omap2/cpuidle34xx.c | 86 +---
1 files changed, 60 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2
We do not longer need the ''cpuidle_params_table' array as
we defined the states in the driver and we checked they are
all valid.
We also remove the structure definition as it is no longer used.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano
Reviewed-by: Jean Pihet
---
arch/arm/mach-omap2/cpuid
Define a CPU_IDLE section in the makefile, declare the functions in
the header files conforming to the kernel coding rules and remove the
'define's in the C files.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano
Reviewed-by: Jean Pihet
---
arch/arm/mach-omap2/Makefile | 11 +++
arc
On 04/25/2012 02:11 PM, Amit Daniel Kachhap wrote:
This patch enables core cpuidle timekeeping and irq enabling and
remove those redundant parts from the exynos cpuidle drivers
CC: Daniel Lezcano
CC: Robert Lee
Signed-off-by: Amit Daniel
---
arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c | 53
On 04/24/2012 04:05 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
This patchset makes some cleanup on these cpuidle drivers
and consolidate the code across both architecture.
Tested on OMAP3 (igepV2).
Partially tested on OMAP4 (pandaboard), without offlining the cpu1.
Hi,
could be this patchset considered for
On 05/01/2012 12:58 AM, Kevin Hilman wrote:
Daniel Lezcano writes:
On 04/24/2012 04:05 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
This patchset makes some cleanup on these cpuidle drivers
and consolidate the code across both architecture.
Tested on OMAP3 (igepV2).
Partially tested on OMAP4 (pandaboard
On 05/01/2012 11:55 AM, Shilimkar, Santosh wrote:
On May 1, 2012 1:46 PM, "Daniel Lezcano" wrote:
On 05/01/2012 12:58 AM, Kevin Hilman wrote:
Daniel Lezcano writes:
On 04/24/2012 04:05 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
This patchset makes some cleanup on these cpuidle drivers
and conso
On 05/03/2012 10:19 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote:
Daniel Lezcano writes:
With the previous changes all the states are valid, except
the last state which can be handled by decreasing the number
of states.
I don't think this changelog is valid anymore as you're not doing
anything to de
On 05/03/2012 10:26 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote:
Daniel Lezcano writes:
and check the powerdomain lookup is successful.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano
Reviewed-by: Jean Pihet
---
arch/arm/mach-omap2/cpuidle34xx.c |5 -
1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch
On 05/03/2012 10:34 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote:
Daniel Lezcano writes:
Define a CPU_IDLE section in the makefile, declare the functions in
the header files conforming to the kernel coding rules and remove the
'define's in the C files.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano
Reviewed-by: Jean Pi
At init time, check the powerdomains lookup is successful otherwise
exit the cpuidle driver init function with -ENODEV like what is done for the
omap3 cpuidle driver.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano
Reviewed-by: Jean Pihet
---
arch/arm/mach-omap2/cpuidle34xx.c |3 +++
1 files changed, 3
ned-off-by: Daniel Lezcano
Reviewed-by: Jean Pihet
---
arch/arm/mach-omap2/Kconfig |2 ++
arch/arm/mach-omap2/Makefile | 11 +++
arch/arm/mach-omap2/cpuidle34xx.c |8
arch/arm/mach-omap2/cpuidle44xx.c |8
arch/arm/mach-omap2/pm.h
ed to select CONFIG_PM when CONFIG_CPU_IDLE is
set.
I compiled with different options but I was not able to boot
my board because the kernel panics for another reason.
Daniel Lezcano (2):
ARM: OMAP3: cpuidle - check the powerdomain lookup
ARM: OMAP3/4: consolidate cpuidle Makefile
arch/arm
On 05/04/2012 07:18 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
Define a CPU_IDLE section in the makefile, declare the functions in
the header files conforming to the kernel coding rules and remove the
'define's in the C files.
CONFIG_PM is enabled when CPU_IDLE is enabled because the cpuidle driver
On 05/08/2012 10:44 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote:
Daniel Lezcano writes:
Define a CPU_IDLE section in the makefile, declare the functions in
the header files conforming to the kernel coding rules and remove the
'define's in the C files.
CONFIG_PM is enabled when CPU_IDLE is enabled b
On 05/09/2012 01:53 PM, Kukjin Kim wrote:
amit kachhap wrote:
Hi Mr Kukjin,
Any comment or update about this patch?
I'm not sure we don't need to check the idle_time?
Others, looks ok to me.
Hi,
may be I misunderstood your question but the behavior is not changed
here, just the code is r
The states are now part of the cpuidle_driver structure, so we can
declare the states in this structure directly. That saves us an extra
variable declaration and a memcpy.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano
---
arch/arm/mach-s3c64xx/cpuidle.c | 33 ++---
1 files changed
The timekeeping is computed from the cpuidle core if we set
the .en_core_tk_irqen flag. Let's use it and remove the duplicated
code.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano
---
arch/arm/mach-s3c64xx/cpuidle.c | 12 +---
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arc
le to test these patches.
Daniel Lezcano (2):
ARM: s3c64xx: cpuidle - declare the states with the new api
ARM: s3c64xx: cpuidle - use timekeeping wrapper
arch/arm/mach-s3c64xx/cpuidle.c | 45 +--
1 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)
--
1.
t Lee cpuidle consolidation
work.
I don't have this board, I was not able to test these patches.
Daniel Lezcano (2):
ARM: DAVINCI: cpuidle - remove useless state count initialization
ARM: DAVINCI: cpuidle - remove ops
arch/arm/mach-davinci/cpuidle.c | 83 +---
The state count is initialized in the driver structure, the cpuidle
core uses it to initialize the device state count.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano
---
arch/arm/mach-davinci/cpuidle.c |2 --
1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-davinci/cpuidle.c b
structure definition
* extra functions definition
* pointless macro definition BIT(0)
It also benefits the readability.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano
---
arch/arm/mach-davinci/cpuidle.c | 81 +--
1 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 54 deletions(-)
diff
files.
This patch fix this also.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano
Reviewed-by: Jean Pihet
---
arch/arm/mach-omap2/Kconfig |2 ++
arch/arm/mach-omap2/Makefile | 11 +++
arch/arm/mach-omap2/cpuidle34xx.c |8
arch/arm/mach-omap2/cpuidle44xx.c |8
On 05/09/2012 04:08 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
These couple of patches use the new cpuidle core api to refactor
some part of the code. The first one declares the states directly
in the driver declaration and the second one use the timekeeping
flag to let the cpuidle core to compute the idle time
On 05/14/2012 10:57 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 10:52:46AM +0200, Heiko St??bner wrote:
Am Montag, 14. Mai 2012, 01:51:00 schrieb Daniel Lezcano:
On 05/09/2012 04:08 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
Are these patches ok for inclusion ?
you might want to include the maintainer
On 05/14/2012 10:57 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 10:52:46AM +0200, Heiko St??bner wrote:
Am Montag, 14. Mai 2012, 01:51:00 schrieb Daniel Lezcano:
On 05/09/2012 04:08 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
Are these patches ok for inclusion ?
you might want to include the maintainer
On 05/14/2012 03:51 PM, Kukjin Kim wrote:
On 05/14/12 18:22, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
On 05/14/2012 10:57 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 10:52:46AM +0200, Heiko St??bner wrote:
Am Montag, 14. Mai 2012, 01:51:00 schrieb Daniel Lezcano:
On 05/09/2012 04:08 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote
The timekeeping is computed from the cpuidle core if we set
the .en_core_tk_irqen flag. Let's use it and remove the duplicated
code.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano
---
arch/arm/mach-s3c64xx/cpuidle.c | 12 +---
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arc
le to test these patches.
Daniel Lezcano (2):
ARM: s3c64xx: cpuidle - declare the states with the new api
ARM: s3c64xx: cpuidle - use timekeeping wrapper
arch/arm/mach-s3c64xx/cpuidle.c | 45 +--
1 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)
--
1.
The states are now part of the cpuidle_driver structure, so we can
declare the states in this structure directly. That saves us an extra
variable declaration and a memcpy.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano
---
arch/arm/mach-s3c64xx/cpuidle.c | 33 ++---
1 files changed
On 05/10/2012 10:44 AM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
These couple of patches use the new cpuidle core api to refactor
some part of the code. The first one removes the state count initialization
as it is done from the cpuidle core and the second one use the new
API and removes the ops.
The patchset is
On 05/20/2012 12:19 PM, Sekhar Nori wrote:
Hi Daniel,
On 5/10/2012 2:14 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
This patch removes the ops usage because we have the index
passed as parameter to the idle function and we can determine
if we do WFI or memory retention.
The benefit of this cleanup is the
structure definition
* extra functions definition
* remove macro definition using BIT(0)
It also benefits the readability.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano
---
arch/arm/mach-davinci/cpuidle.c | 81 +--
1 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 54 deletions(-)
diff
On 05/22/2012 07:58 PM, Sekhar Nori wrote:
Hi Daniel,
On 5/21/2012 3:37 AM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
This patch removes the ops usage because we have the index
passed as parameter to the idle function and we can determine
if we do WFI or memory retention.
The benefit of this cleanup is the
On 05/14/2012 06:42 AM, Rajendra Nayak wrote:
> On Thursday 10 May 2012 03:32 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> The current Makefile compiles the cpuidle34xx.c and cpuidle44xx.c files
>> even if the cpuidle option is not set in the kernel.
>>
>> This patch fixes this b
On 04/03/2012 07:49 AM, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> On 04/03/2012 12:50 AM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>
>> The usual cpuidle initialization routines register the driver and
>> then register a cpuidle device per cpu.
>>
>> By default, most drivers initialize the device
On 05/30/2012 09:15 AM, kejun.zhou wrote:
> Signed-off-by: kejun.zhou
> ---
> cpuidle/cpuidle_killer.c |6 --
> 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/cpuidle/cpuidle_killer.c b/cpuidle/cpuidle_killer.c
> index c8910f4..0e4d666 100644
> --- a/cpuidle/cpuidle_ki
On 05/30/2012 08:07 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> Daniel Lezcano writes:
>
>> On 05/14/2012 06:42 AM, Rajendra Nayak wrote:
>>> On Thursday 10 May 2012 03:32 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>>> The current Makefile compiles the cpuidle34xx.c and cpuidle44xx.c files
>&
Move this specific flag to the header file.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano
---
drivers/idle/intel_idle.c |8
include/linux/cpuidle.h |7 +++
2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/idle/intel_idle.c b/drivers/idle/intel_idle.c
index d0f59c3
function checks if the 'enter' callback is
assigned in the driver structure and use it, otherwise it invokes
the 'enter' assigned to the cpuidle_state.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano
---
drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c |4 +++-
include/linux/cpuidle.h |1 +
2 files ch
We have a flag field for each cpuidle state but we don't use it
for the 'disabled' states. Let's remove the integer field and use
the flag field.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano
---
drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c|1 -
drivers/cpuidle/governors/menu.c |5 +++--
dri
IDLE_FLAG_DEAD_VALID has been added
to handle the callback conditional invokation.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano
---
drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c |7 +++
drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c |4 ++--
include/linux/cpuidle.h | 25 +
3 files changed, 22 inserti
On 06/08/2012 07:33 PM, Deepthi Dharwar wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
Hi Deepthi,
> 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 severa
On 06/13/2012 02:44 PM, Jean Pihet wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 11:34 PM, Daniel Lezcano
> wrote:
>> On 06/08/2012 07:33 PM, Deepthi Dharwar wrote:
>>> Hi Daniel,
>>
>> Hi Deepthi,
>>
>>> On 06/08/2012 09:32 PM, Daniel Lez
On 06/14/2012 09:49 AM, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, 8 Jun 2012 18:02:42 +0200, 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
&
On 06/15/2012 05:22 AM, kejun.zhou wrote:
> From: "kejun.zhou"
>
> Signed-off-by: kejun.zhou
> ---
> Android.mk | 21 +
> 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/Android.mk b/Android.mk
> index 5053e7d..b296974 100644
> --- a/Android.mk
> +++ b/Android.mk
> @@ -
d cpuidle/*.sh)
?
When a new test is added, you have to add the file to Android.mk.
It should be possible to write the rules in a way you don't have to edit
the Makefile each time, no ?
> On 15 June 2012 14:29, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>
>> On 06/15/2012 05:22 AM, kejun.zh
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 different implementation.
The Linaro Connect [3] event bring us
On 06/18/2012 01:54 PM, Deepthi Dharwar wrote:
> 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
On 06/18/2012 02:53 PM, Peter De Schrijver wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 02:35:42PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> On 06/18/2012 01:54 PM, Deepthi Dharwar wrote:
>>> On 06/18/2012 02:10 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dear all,
>&
On 06/18/2012 03:06 PM, Jean Pihet wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 2:55 PM, Daniel Lezcano
> wrote:
>> On 06/18/2012 02:53 PM, Peter De Schrijver wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 02:35:42PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>>> On 06/
On 06/18/2012 08:15 PM, Colin Cross wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 1:40 AM, Daniel Lezcano
> wrote:
>> I propose to host a cpuidle-next tree where all these modifications will
>> be and where people can send patches against, preventing last minutes
>> conflicts and pe
On 06/18/2012 08:15 PM, Colin Cross wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 1:40 AM, Daniel Lezcano
> wrote:
>> I propose to host a cpuidle-next tree where all these modifications will
>> be and where people can send patches against, preventing last minutes
>> conflicts and pe
On 06/25/2012 02:58 PM, Shilimkar, Santosh wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 7:00 PM, a0393909 wrote:
>> Daniel,
>>
>>
>> On 06/18/2012 02:10 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> A few weeks ago, Peter De
Hi Stephen,
we discussed last week to put in place a tree grouping the cpuidle
modifications [1]. Is it possible to add the tree ?
git://git.linaro.org/people/dlezcano/cpuidle-next.git #cpuidle-next
It contains for the moment Colin Cross's cpuidle coupled states.
Thanks in advance
-- Daniel
the
notifier of intel_idle. In order to make it work, the notifier
must be initialized in the right order, acpi then intel_idle.
This is done in the Makefile. This patch has the benefit of
encapsulating the intel_idle driver and remove some exported
functions.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano
On 06/27/2012 03:06 PM, Thomas Renninger wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I agree that such a dependency between 2 modules is not
> nice. But your patch will have bad side-effects (see comments
> embedded below).
>
> On Wednesday, June 27, 2012 11:07:48 AM Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> Whe
the
notifier of intel_idle. This patch has the benefit of
encapsulating the intel_idle driver and remove some exported
functions.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano
---
drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c |7 --
drivers/idle/intel_idle.c | 41 +-
include
On 06/28/2012 01:24 PM, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> On 06/28/2012 02:16 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> When the system is booted with some cpus offline, the idle
>> driver is not initialized. When a cpu is set online, the
>> acpi code call the intel idle init function. Unfor
On 06/28/2012 09:24 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thursday, June 28, 2012, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> When the system is booted with some cpus offline, the idle
>> driver is not initialized. When a cpu is set online, the
>> acpi code call the intel idle init function. Unfor
On 06/30/2012 12:27 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Friday, June 29, 2012, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> On 06/28/2012 09:24 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> On Thursday, June 28, 2012, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>>> When the system is booted with some cpus offlin
On 07/02/2012 11:09 AM, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 3:27 PM, Daniel Lezcano
> wrote:
>
>> we discussed last week to put in place a tree grouping the cpuidle
>> modifications [1]. Is it possible to add the tree ?
>>
>> git://git.linaro.org
On 06/27/2012 06:55 PM, Rajagopal Venkat wrote:
> From: root
Please, check your git configuration.
[user]
name = Rajagopal Venkat
email = rajagopal.ven...@linaro.org
[sendemail]
smtpencryption = tls
smtpserver = smtp.gmail.com
smtpuser = rajagopal.ven...@l
On 07/02/2012 09:49 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, July 02, 2012, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>
>> On 07/02/2012 11:09 AM, Linus Walleij wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 3:27 PM, Daniel Lezcano
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> we discussed
On 07/03/2012 10:59 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 03, 2012, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> On 07/02/2012 09:49 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> On Monday, July 02, 2012, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 07/02/2012 11:09 AM, Linus Walleij wr
On 07/03/2012 03:19 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 14:56:58 +0200 Daniel Lezcano
> wrote:
>>
>>> So do you have a branch in the cpuidle-next.git tree that isn't going to
>>> be rebased?
>>
>> No. I am fol
101 - 200 of 720 matches
Mail list logo
