On 09/13/2016 07:09 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 20, 2016 03:10:04 PM Al Stone wrote:
>> When CPPC is being used by ACPI on arm64, user space tools such as
>> cpupower report CPU frequency values from sysfs that are incorrect.
>>
>> What the driver was doing was reporting the v
On Wednesday, July 20, 2016 03:10:04 PM Al Stone wrote:
> When CPPC is being used by ACPI on arm64, user space tools such as
> cpupower report CPU frequency values from sysfs that are incorrect.
>
> What the driver was doing was reporting the values given by ACPI tables
> in whatever scale was use
On 08/25/2016 04:00 PM, Pandruvada, Srinivas wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-08-23 at 10:14 -0600, Al Stone wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>> In x86 when CPPC is used, the unit is really unit-less in CPPC
>>> tables.
>>> This means that cpu->perf_caps.highest_perf can be just 0xff,
>>> instead
>>> of some scaled
On Tue, 2016-08-23 at 10:14 -0600, Al Stone wrote:
> > >
[...]
> > In x86 when CPPC is used, the unit is really unit-less in CPPC
> > tables.
> > This means that cpu->perf_caps.highest_perf can be just 0xff,
> > instead
> > of some scaled cppc max performance corresponding to max MHZ the
> > pro
On 08/22/2016 10:31 PM, Pandruvada, Srinivas wrote:
> On Mon, 2016-08-22 at 12:12 -0600, Al Stone wrote:
>> On 08/22/2016 11:45 AM, Ashwin Chaugule wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Al,
>>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 10:16 AM, Al Stone wrote:
Maybe a top-post will get attention
Yet anothe
On Mon, 2016-08-22 at 12:12 -0600, Al Stone wrote:
> On 08/22/2016 11:45 AM, Ashwin Chaugule wrote:
> >
> > Hi Al,
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 10:16 AM, Al Stone wrote:
> > >
> > > Maybe a top-post will get attention
> > >
> > > Yet another ping; this was first submitted on 20 July, an
On 08/22/2016 11:45 AM, Ashwin Chaugule wrote:
> Hi Al,
>
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 10:16 AM, Al Stone wrote:
>> Maybe a top-post will get attention
>>
>> Yet another ping; this was first submitted on 20 July, and has received
>> no comments. It has now been a month and other architectures a
Hi Al,
On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 10:16 AM, Al Stone wrote:
> Maybe a top-post will get attention
>
> Yet another ping; this was first submitted on 20 July, and has received
> no comments. It has now been a month and other architectures are starting
> to use CPPC so they will run into the same
Maybe a top-post will get attention
Yet another ping; this was first submitted on 20 July, and has received
no comments. It has now been a month and other architectures are starting
to use CPPC so they will run into the same errors that this fixes. Can
I get an ACK, NAK, or further instructi
On 08/01/2016 02:31 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> [+ Ashwin's new email id..]
>
> On 20-07-16, 15:10, Al Stone wrote:
>> When CPPC is being used by ACPI on arm64, user space tools such as
>> cpupower report CPU frequency values from sysfs that are incorrect.
>>
>> What the driver was doing was reporti
[+ Ashwin's new email id..]
On 20-07-16, 15:10, Al Stone wrote:
> When CPPC is being used by ACPI on arm64, user space tools such as
> cpupower report CPU frequency values from sysfs that are incorrect.
>
> What the driver was doing was reporting the values given by ACPI tables
> in whatever scal
On 07/20/2016 03:10 PM, Al Stone wrote:
> When CPPC is being used by ACPI on arm64, user space tools such as
> cpupower report CPU frequency values from sysfs that are incorrect.
>
> What the driver was doing was reporting the values given by ACPI tables
> in whatever scale was used to provide the
When CPPC is being used by ACPI on arm64, user space tools such as
cpupower report CPU frequency values from sysfs that are incorrect.
What the driver was doing was reporting the values given by ACPI tables
in whatever scale was used to provide them. However, the ACPI spec
defines the CPPC values
13 matches
Mail list logo
