On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 10:25:13AM -0700, Mike Turquette wrote:
> Quoting Peter Zijlstra (2014-10-09 02:02:52)
> > On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 03:37:32PM -0700, Mike Turquette wrote:
> > > It creates a dependency such that any ARM platform that wants to have
> > > frequency-invariant load must use CPUf
On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 03:37:32PM -0700, Mike Turquette wrote:
> It creates a dependency such that any ARM platform that wants to have
> frequency-invariant load must use CPUfreq. I don't think we want that
> dependency. CPUfreq is a likely back-end for many devices, but not all.
>
> Consider nea
On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 07:26:12AM +0100, Mike Turquette wrote:
> Move the cpu capacity bits out of arch/arm/ and into the CPUfreq driver.
> Not all ARM devices will use CPUfreq and it is unsafe to assume as such
> in topology.c.
>
> Instead, use the new capacity_ops introduced into CFS. If this c
Move the cpu capacity bits out of arch/arm/ and into the CPUfreq driver.
Not all ARM devices will use CPUfreq and it is unsafe to assume as such
in topology.c.
Instead, use the new capacity_ops introduced into CFS. If this code is
generic enough then it could be factored and shared via a header to
4 matches
Mail list logo
