On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 12:46 PM, Daniel Lezcano
daniel.lezc...@linaro.org wrote:
We have the cpuidle states pointer stored in the cpuidle device
structure. This patch use this pointer instead of the driver's one.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano daniel.lezc...@linaro.org
---
Sorry for another
Vincent,
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 2:57 PM, Vincent Guittot
vincent.guit...@linaro.org wrote:
Use cpu compatibility field and clock-frequency field of DT to
estimate the capacity of each core of the system and to update
the cpu_power field accordingly.
This patch enables to put more running tasks
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 4:30 PM, Peter Zijlstra a.p.zijls...@chello.nl wrote:
On Mon, 2012-07-09 at 16:25 +0530, Shilimkar, Santosh wrote:
Having that support would greatly help for the SOC's which have not
yet
reached to stage where entire SOC is DT compliant and want to use
big.LITTLE
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 7:00 PM, a0393909 santosh.shilim...@ti.com wrote:
Daniel,
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
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 6:40 PM, Daniel Lezcano
daniel.lezc...@linaro.org wrote:
On 06/25/2012 02:58 PM, Shilimkar, Santosh wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 7:00 PM, a0393909 santosh.shilim...@ti.com wrote:
Daniel,
On 06/18/2012 02:10 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
Dear all,
A few weeks ago
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 3:50 PM, Daniel Lezcano
daniel.lezc...@linaro.org wrote:
On 05/01/2012 11:55 AM, Shilimkar, Santosh wrote:
On May 1, 2012 1:46 PM, Daniel Lezcanodaniel.lezc...@linaro.org
wrote:
On 05/01/2012 12:58 AM, Kevin Hilman wrote:
Daniel Lezcanodaniel.lezc...@linaro.org
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 2:57 PM, Daniel Lezcano
daniel.lezc...@linaro.org wrote:
This patchset is a proposition to improve a bit the code.
The changes are code cleanup and does not change the behavior of the
driver itself.
Thanks. Will have a look at your series.
A couple a things call my
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 2:57 PM, Daniel Lezcano
daniel.lezc...@linaro.org wrote:
The 'valid' field is never used in the code, let's remove it.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano daniel.lezc...@linaro.org
---
It is used during the registration. This field has been very useful for
debug when need to
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 4:13 PM, Daniel Lezcano
daniel.lezc...@linaro.org wrote:
On 03/21/2012 10:56 AM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
On Wednesday 21 March 2012 03:21 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
On 03/21/2012 10:36 AM, Shilimkar, Santosh wrote:
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 2:57 PM, Daniel Lezcano
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Jean Pihet jean.pi...@newoldbits.com wrote:
Hi Santosh, Daniel,
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Santosh Shilimkar
santosh.shilim...@ti.com wrote:
Daniel,
On Wednesday 21 March 2012 02:57 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
This patchset is a proposition to improve
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Richard Zhao richard.z...@linaro.org wrote:
If CONFIG_SMP, cpufreq skips loops_per_jiffy update, because different
arch has different per-cpu loops_per_jiffy definition.
Signed-off-by: Richard Zhao richard.z...@linaro.org
Acked-by: Russell King
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Richard Zhao richard.z...@linaro.org wrote:
arm registered cpufreq transition notifier to recalculate it.
Signed-off-by: Richard Zhao richard.z...@linaro.org
---
Thanks for the OMAP updates
Acked-by: Santosh Shilimkar santosh.shilim...@ti.com
+ Peter Z
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 3:37 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
li...@arm.linux.org.uk wrote:
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 05:59:07PM +0800, Barry Song wrote:
2011/12/21 Russell King - ARM Linux li...@arm.linux.org.uk:
cpu hotplug is basically totally buggered - the preconditions placed
upon
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 3:54 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
li...@arm.linux.org.uk wrote:
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 02:19:23PM +0530, Shilimkar, Santosh wrote:
+ Peter Z
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 3:37 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
li...@arm.linux.org.uk wrote:
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 05:59:07PM
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 1:53 AM, Mans Rullgard mans.rullg...@linaro.org wrote:
On 27 November 2011 18:18, Woodruff, Richard r-woodru...@ti.com wrote:
From: linaro-dev-boun...@lists.linaro.org [mailto:linaro-dev-
boun...@lists.linaro.org] On Behalf Of Mans Rullgard
Do you have an erratum
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 6:55 AM, Andy Green andy.gr...@linaro.org wrote:
On 11/22/2011 08:57 PM, Somebody in the thread at some point said:
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 6:02 PM, Mans Rullgardmans.rullg...@linaro.org
wrote:
On 22 November 2011 05:14, Shilimkar, Santoshsantosh.shilim...@ti.com
Mans,
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 8:15 AM, Mans Rullgard mans.rullg...@linaro.org wrote:
These patches fix and tweak various cache settings for the 4460
resulting in a speed increase exceeding 10% in some tests.
Mans Rullgard (5):
OMAP4: apply L2 cache lockdown workaround only on 4460 ES1.0
Bobby,
-Original Message-
From: Bobby Batacharia [mailto:bobby.batacha...@arm.com]
Sent: Sunday, October 17, 2010 4:08 AM
To: Shilimkar, Santosh; Jon Callan; linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org
Subject: RE: Common ARM context save/restore code
Santosh,
Again - apologies for the tardy
Jon
-Original Message-
From: linaro-dev-boun...@lists.linaro.org [mailto:linaro-dev-
boun...@lists.linaro.org] On Behalf Of Jon Callan
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2010 4:10 PM
To: linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org
Subject: Common ARM context save/restore code
Vishwa,
I have a
-Original Message-
From: linaro-dev-boun...@lists.linaro.org [mailto:linaro-dev-
boun...@lists.linaro.org] On Behalf Of Amit Kucheria
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2010 1:26 PM
To: Kevin Hilman
Cc: linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org; linux-o...@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] OMAP
Benoit,
-Original Message-
From: linux-omap-ow...@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-omap-
ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Cousson, Benoit
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2010 3:56 PM
To: vishwanath.sripa...@linaro.org; Sripathy, Vishwanath
Cc: linux-o...@vger.kernel.org;
21 matches
Mail list logo
