Re: [PATCH 0/6] cpuidle : per cpu latencies

2012-09-18 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki
On Tuesday, September 18, 2012, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 10:35:00PM +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > > On 09/17/2012 10:50 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > On Monday, September 17, 2012, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > > >> On 09/08/2012 12:17 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > >>>

Re: [PATCH 0/6] cpuidle : per cpu latencies

2012-09-18 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki
On Monday, September 17, 2012, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > On 09/17/2012 10:50 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Monday, September 17, 2012, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > >> On 09/08/2012 12:17 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > >>> On Friday, September 07, 2012, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > Since commit 46bcf

Re: [PATCH 0/6] cpuidle : per cpu latencies

2012-09-18 Thread Peter De Schrijver
> > It is similar with Tegra3. > In our case CPU0 has different latencies for 1 C state compared to the other CPUs > I think Peter and Lorenzo already wrote a driver based on this approach. > Peter, Lorenzo any comments ? > Yes. My implementation doesn't provide a state table in the cpuidle d

Re: [PATCH 0/6] cpuidle : per cpu latencies

2012-09-18 Thread Lorenzo Pieralisi
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 10:35:00PM +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > On 09/17/2012 10:50 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Monday, September 17, 2012, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > >> On 09/08/2012 12:17 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > >>> On Friday, September 07, 2012, Daniel Lezcano wrote: [...] > >>>

Re: [PATCH 0/6] cpuidle : per cpu latencies

2012-09-17 Thread Daniel Lezcano
On 09/17/2012 10:50 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Monday, September 17, 2012, Daniel Lezcano wrote: >> On 09/08/2012 12:17 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>> On Friday, September 07, 2012, Daniel Lezcano wrote: Since commit 46bcfad7a819bd17ac4e831b04405152d59784ab, cpuidle: Sing

Re: [PATCH 0/6] cpuidle : per cpu latencies

2012-09-17 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki
On Monday, September 17, 2012, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > On 09/08/2012 12:17 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Friday, September 07, 2012, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > >> Since commit 46bcfad7a819bd17ac4e831b04405152d59784ab, > >> cpuidle: Single/Global registration of idle states > >> > >> we h

Re: [PATCH 0/6] cpuidle : per cpu latencies

2012-09-17 Thread Daniel Lezcano
On 09/08/2012 12:17 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Friday, September 07, 2012, Daniel Lezcano wrote: >> Since commit 46bcfad7a819bd17ac4e831b04405152d59784ab, >> cpuidle: Single/Global registration of idle states >> >> we have a single registration for the cpuidle states which makes >> s

Re: [PATCH 0/6] cpuidle : per cpu latencies

2012-09-08 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki
On Friday, September 07, 2012, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > Since commit 46bcfad7a819bd17ac4e831b04405152d59784ab, > cpuidle: Single/Global registration of idle states > > we have a single registration for the cpuidle states which makes > sense. But now two new architectures are coming: tegra3

Re: [PATCH 0/6] cpuidle : per cpu latencies

2012-09-07 Thread Daniel Lezcano
On 09/07/2012 01:04 PM, Amit Kucheria wrote: > On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 3:49 PM, Daniel Lezcano > wrote: >> Since commit 46bcfad7a819bd17ac4e831b04405152d59784ab, >> cpuidle: Single/Global registration of idle states >> >> we have a single registration for the cpuidle states which makes >> s

Re: [PATCH 0/6] cpuidle : per cpu latencies

2012-09-07 Thread Amit Kucheria
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 3:49 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > Since commit 46bcfad7a819bd17ac4e831b04405152d59784ab, > cpuidle: Single/Global registration of idle states > > we have a single registration for the cpuidle states which makes > sense. But now two new architectures are coming: tegra3

[PATCH 0/6] cpuidle : per cpu latencies

2012-09-07 Thread Daniel Lezcano
Since commit 46bcfad7a819bd17ac4e831b04405152d59784ab, cpuidle: Single/Global registration of idle states we have a single registration for the cpuidle states which makes sense. But now two new architectures are coming: tegra3 and big.LITTLE. These architectures have different cpus with d