On 01/12/2017 02:40 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi Greg,
>> >
>> > Thanks for comments!
>> >
>> > The function dev_pm_qos_expose_latency_limit() is null if no CONFIG_PM.
>> > So when CONFIG_PM enabled, may we could consider the cpu idle is also
>> > wanted. In this assumption the #ifde
On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 3:33 PM, Alex Shi wrote:
>
>>> > #include "base.h"
>>> >
>>> > @@ -376,6 +377,9 @@ int register_cpu(struct cpu *cpu, int num)
>>> >
>>> >per_cpu(cpu_sys_devices, num) = &cpu->dev;
>>> >register_cpu_under_node(num, cpu_to_node(num));
>>> > +#ifdef CONFIG_CPU_IDLE_GO
>> > #include "base.h"
>> >
>> > @@ -376,6 +377,9 @@ int register_cpu(struct cpu *cpu, int num)
>> >
>> >per_cpu(cpu_sys_devices, num) = &cpu->dev;
>> >register_cpu_under_node(num, cpu_to_node(num));
>> > +#ifdef CONFIG_CPU_IDLE_GOV_MENU
>> > + dev_pm_qos_expose_latency_limit(&cpu->d
On Thu, Jan 05, 2017 at 11:29:46PM +0800, Alex Shi wrote:
> The cpu-dma PM QoS constraint impacts all the cpus in the system. There
> is no way to let the user to choose a PM QoS constraint per cpu.
>
> The following patch exposes to the userspace a per cpu based sysfs file
> in order to let the u
The cpu-dma PM QoS constraint impacts all the cpus in the system. There
is no way to let the user to choose a PM QoS constraint per cpu.
The following patch exposes to the userspace a per cpu based sysfs file
in order to let the userspace to change the value of the PM QoS latency
constraint.
This
5 matches
Mail list logo