From: Sascha Hauer
This adds support for hardware-tracked trip points to the device tree
thermal sensor framework.
The framework supports an arbitrary number of trip points. Whenever
the current temperature is updated, the trip points immediately
below and above the current temperature are found
On Friday, May 27, 2016 8:03:57 AM CEST Heiko Carstens wrote:
> > > > > Cost wise, this seems like it all cancels out in the end, but what
> > > > > do I know?
> > > >
> > > > I think you know something, and I also think Heiko and other s390 guys
> > > > know something as well. So I'd like to list
On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 08:03:57AM +0200, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> > > > The cost is pretty trivial though. See kernel/compat_wrapper.o:
> > > > COMPAT_SYSCALL_WRAP2(creat, const char __user *, pathname, umode_t,
> > > > mode);
> > > > 0: a9bf7bfdstp x29, x30, [sp,#-16]!
> > > > 4:
On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 10:42:59AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Friday, May 27, 2016 8:03:57 AM CEST Heiko Carstens wrote:
> > > > > > Cost wise, this seems like it all cancels out in the end, but what
> > > > > > do I know?
> > > > >
> > > > > I think you know something, and I also think Heik
On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 12:43:44PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: Catalin Marinas
> Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 15:20:58 +0100
>
> > We can solve (a) by adding more __SC_WRAP annotations in the generic
> > unistd.h.
> ...
>
> I really think it's much more robust to clear the tops of the register
On Friday, May 27, 2016 10:30:52 AM CEST Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 10:42:59AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Friday, May 27, 2016 8:03:57 AM CEST Heiko Carstens wrote:
> > > > > > > Cost wise, this seems like it all cancels out in the end, but what
> > > > > > > do I know
On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 12:49:11PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Friday, May 27, 2016 10:30:52 AM CEST Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 10:42:59AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > On Friday, May 27, 2016 8:03:57 AM CEST Heiko Carstens wrote:
> > > > > > > > Cost wise, this see
On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 02:04:47PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 12:49:11PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Friday, May 27, 2016 10:30:52 AM CEST Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 10:42:59AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > > On Friday, May 27, 2016
On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 07:58:06PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote:
> So, we have 3 options for now:
> 1. Clear top halves in entry.S which means we pass off_t as a pair.
>The cost is performance (didn't measure it yet and doubt about it
>makes serious impact). The advantage is simplicity and unifi
