Viresh,
On Friday 01 February 2013 02:22 PM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
On Friday 01 February 2013 01:32 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 1 February 2013 13:03, Santosh Shilimkar
wrote:
I am not talking about just notifiers. This is for external users who
has subscribed for notifiers. The point is
On Friday 01 February 2013 01:32 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 1 February 2013 13:03, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
I am not talking about just notifiers. This is for external users who
has subscribed for notifiers. The point is whether the core CPUFReq
gets updated without that flag for all affected
On 1 February 2013 13:03, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
> I am not talking about just notifiers. This is for external users who
> has subscribed for notifiers. The point is whether the core CPUFReq
> gets updated without that flag for all affected CPU.
Yes, its safe. Follow this thread, yesterday i
On 1 February 2013 13:03, Santosh Shilimkar santosh.shilim...@ti.com wrote:
I am not talking about just notifiers. This is for external users who
has subscribed for notifiers. The point is whether the core CPUFReq
gets updated without that flag for all affected CPU.
Yes, its safe. Follow this
On Friday 01 February 2013 01:32 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 1 February 2013 13:03, Santosh Shilimkar santosh.shilim...@ti.com wrote:
I am not talking about just notifiers. This is for external users who
has subscribed for notifiers. The point is whether the core CPUFReq
gets updated without
Viresh,
On Friday 01 February 2013 02:22 PM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
On Friday 01 February 2013 01:32 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 1 February 2013 13:03, Santosh Shilimkar santosh.shilim...@ti.com
wrote:
I am not talking about just notifiers. This is for external users who
has subscribed for
On Friday 01 February 2013 12:43 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 1 February 2013 12:17, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
I haven't looked at the cpufreq code recently but remember
that it was needed to ensure that all the CPU which
share clock/voltage gets updated (affected cpus) on
freq change. The CPUs
On 1 February 2013 12:17, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
> I haven't looked at the cpufreq code recently but remember
> that it was needed to ensure that all the CPU which
> share clock/voltage gets updated (affected cpus) on
> freq change. The CPUs which needs SW co-ordination, should
> have this flag
On Friday 01 February 2013 12:10 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
policy->shared_type field was added only for SoCs with ACPI support:
commit 3b2d99429e3386b6e2ac949fc72486509c8bbe36
Author: Venkatesh Pallipadi
Date: Wed Dec 14 15:05:00 2005 -0500
P-state software coordination for ACPI core
On 1 February 2013 12:10, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> policy->shared_type field was added only for SoCs with ACPI support:
>
> commit 3b2d99429e3386b6e2ac949fc72486509c8bbe36
> Author: Venkatesh Pallipadi
> Date: Wed Dec 14 15:05:00 2005 -0500
>
> P-state software coordination for ACPI core
>
>
policy->shared_type field was added only for SoCs with ACPI support:
commit 3b2d99429e3386b6e2ac949fc72486509c8bbe36
Author: Venkatesh Pallipadi
Date: Wed Dec 14 15:05:00 2005 -0500
P-state software coordination for ACPI core
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5737
Many
policy-shared_type field was added only for SoCs with ACPI support:
commit 3b2d99429e3386b6e2ac949fc72486509c8bbe36
Author: Venkatesh Pallipadi venkatesh.pallip...@intel.com
Date: Wed Dec 14 15:05:00 2005 -0500
P-state software coordination for ACPI core
On 1 February 2013 12:10, Viresh Kumar viresh.ku...@linaro.org wrote:
policy-shared_type field was added only for SoCs with ACPI support:
commit 3b2d99429e3386b6e2ac949fc72486509c8bbe36
Author: Venkatesh Pallipadi venkatesh.pallip...@intel.com
Date: Wed Dec 14 15:05:00 2005 -0500
On Friday 01 February 2013 12:10 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
policy-shared_type field was added only for SoCs with ACPI support:
commit 3b2d99429e3386b6e2ac949fc72486509c8bbe36
Author: Venkatesh Pallipadi venkatesh.pallip...@intel.com
Date: Wed Dec 14 15:05:00 2005 -0500
P-state software
On 1 February 2013 12:17, Santosh Shilimkar santosh.shilim...@ti.com wrote:
I haven't looked at the cpufreq code recently but remember
that it was needed to ensure that all the CPU which
share clock/voltage gets updated (affected cpus) on
freq change. The CPUs which needs SW co-ordination,
On Friday 01 February 2013 12:43 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 1 February 2013 12:17, Santosh Shilimkar santosh.shilim...@ti.com wrote:
I haven't looked at the cpufreq code recently but remember
that it was needed to ensure that all the CPU which
share clock/voltage gets updated (affected cpus) on
16 matches
Mail list logo
