On Wed, 23 Jan 2019 at 09:50, Vincent Guittot
wrote:
>
> On Wed, 23 Jan 2019 at 09:14, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 at 15:24, Vincent Guittot
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Initializing accounting_timestamp to something different from 0 during
> > > pm_runtime_init() doesn't make sense
On Wed, 23 Jan 2019 at 09:14, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>
> On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 at 15:24, Vincent Guittot
> wrote:
> >
> > Initializing accounting_timestamp to something different from 0 during
> > pm_runtime_init() doesn't make sense and put useless ordering constraint
> > between
> > timekeeping_init
On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 at 15:24, Vincent Guittot
wrote:
>
> Initializing accounting_timestamp to something different from 0 during
> pm_runtime_init() doesn't make sense and put useless ordering constraint
> between
> timekeeping_init() and pm_runtime_init().
> PM runtime should start accounting tim
On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 at 16:14, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 3:24 PM Vincent Guittot
> wrote:
> >
> > Initializing accounting_timestamp to something different from 0 during
> > pm_runtime_init() doesn't make sense and put useless ordering constraint
> > between
> > timekeep
On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 3:24 PM Vincent Guittot
wrote:
>
> Initializing accounting_timestamp to something different from 0 during
> pm_runtime_init() doesn't make sense and put useless ordering constraint
> between
> timekeeping_init() and pm_runtime_init().
> PM runtime should start accounting t
Initializing accounting_timestamp to something different from 0 during
pm_runtime_init() doesn't make sense and put useless ordering constraint between
timekeeping_init() and pm_runtime_init().
PM runtime should start accounting time only when it is enable and discard
the period when disabled.
Set
6 matches
Mail list logo