On 08/04/2013 10:19 PM, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 9:19 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Sunday, August 04, 2013 01:42:49 AM Felipe Contreras wrote:
>
>>> Personally I think there are better ways to fix the code for the
>>> synthetic case than what you patch does, which wi
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 9:04 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> In my machine I think the issue is slightly different, I think _BCM is
>> failing, at least until enabling the _DOS thing, but at the end of the
>> day it's the same thing for the check; _BQC is always returning the
>> same value, and th
On Sunday, August 04, 2013 09:19:56 AM Felipe Contreras wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 9:19 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Sunday, August 04, 2013 01:42:49 AM Felipe Contreras wrote:
>
> >> Personally I think there are better ways to fix the code for the
> >> synthetic case than what you pa
On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 9:19 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Sunday, August 04, 2013 01:42:49 AM Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> Personally I think there are better ways to fix the code for the
>> synthetic case than what you patch does, which will also make _BQC
>> work. That can be discussed later
On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 9:14 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Sunday, August 04, 2013 01:54:21 AM Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> But we cannot achieve either of those for v3.11, the only
>> possibilities seem to be either a) revert efaa14c, or b) keep it and
>> apply my patch. Anything else doesn't s
On Sunday, August 04, 2013 01:42:49 AM Felipe Contreras wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 8:18 PM, Aaron Lu wrote:
> > On 08/03/2013 07:34 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >> On Saturday, August 03, 2013 04:14:04 PM Aaron Lu wrote:
> >>> On 08/03/2013 07:47 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Frida
On Sunday, August 04, 2013 01:54:21 AM Felipe Contreras wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 8:47 PM, Aaron Lu wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 6:20 AM, Felipe Contreras
> > wrote:
> >> On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 4:40 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> >>> Do we still need to revert commit efaa14c if thi
On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 8:47 PM, Aaron Lu wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 6:20 AM, Felipe Contreras
> wrote:
>> On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 4:40 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> Do we still need to revert commit efaa14c if this patch is applied?
>>
>> I guess not. At least in this machine changing th
On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 8:18 PM, Aaron Lu wrote:
> On 08/03/2013 07:34 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Saturday, August 03, 2013 04:14:04 PM Aaron Lu wrote:
>>> On 08/03/2013 07:47 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Friday, August 02, 2013 02:37:09 PM Felipe Contreras wrote:
> If the _BCL
On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 6:20 AM, Felipe Contreras
wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 4:40 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Saturday, August 03, 2013 03:24:16 PM Felipe Contreras wrote:
>>> On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 6:34 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> > On Saturday, August 03, 2013 04:14:04 PM Aaron
On 08/03/2013 07:34 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Saturday, August 03, 2013 04:14:04 PM Aaron Lu wrote:
>> On 08/03/2013 07:47 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> On Friday, August 02, 2013 02:37:09 PM Felipe Contreras wrote:
If the _BCL package is descending, the first level (br->levels[2])
On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 5:38 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Saturday, August 03, 2013 05:20:33 PM Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 4:40 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> > On Saturday, August 03, 2013 03:24:16 PM Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> >> On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 6:34 AM, Rafae
On Saturday, August 03, 2013 05:20:33 PM Felipe Contreras wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 4:40 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Saturday, August 03, 2013 03:24:16 PM Felipe Contreras wrote:
> >> On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 6:34 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >> > On Saturday, August 03, 2013 04:14:
On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 4:40 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Saturday, August 03, 2013 03:24:16 PM Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 6:34 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> > On Saturday, August 03, 2013 04:14:04 PM Aaron Lu wrote:
>>
>> >> Yes, the patch is correct, but I still pre
On Saturday, August 03, 2013 03:24:16 PM Felipe Contreras wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 6:34 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Saturday, August 03, 2013 04:14:04 PM Aaron Lu wrote:
>
> >> Yes, the patch is correct, but I still prefer my own version :-)
> >> https://github.com/aaronlu/linux/co
On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 6:34 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Saturday, August 03, 2013 04:14:04 PM Aaron Lu wrote:
>> Yes, the patch is correct, but I still prefer my own version :-)
>> https://github.com/aaronlu/linux/commit/0a3d2c5b59caf80ae5bb1ca1fda0f7bf448b38c9
>>
>> In case you want to tak
On Saturday, August 03, 2013 04:14:04 PM Aaron Lu wrote:
> On 08/03/2013 07:47 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Friday, August 02, 2013 02:37:09 PM Felipe Contreras wrote:
> >> If the _BCL package is descending, the first level (br->levels[2]) will
> >> be 0, and if the number of levels matches
On 08/03/2013 07:47 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Friday, August 02, 2013 02:37:09 PM Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> If the _BCL package is descending, the first level (br->levels[2]) will
>> be 0, and if the number of levels matches the number of steps, we might
>> confuse a returned level to mean
On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 8:19 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Friday, August 02, 2013 08:07:37 PM Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 8:16 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> > On Friday, August 02, 2013 08:04:52 PM Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> >> On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 6:47 PM, Rafael J.
On Friday, August 02, 2013 08:07:37 PM Felipe Contreras wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 8:16 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Friday, August 02, 2013 08:04:52 PM Felipe Contreras wrote:
> >> On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 6:47 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >> > On Friday, August 02, 2013 02:37:09 PM
On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 8:16 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Friday, August 02, 2013 08:04:52 PM Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 6:47 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> > On Friday, August 02, 2013 02:37:09 PM Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> >> If the _BCL package is descending, the fi
On Friday, August 02, 2013 08:04:52 PM Felipe Contreras wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 6:47 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Friday, August 02, 2013 02:37:09 PM Felipe Contreras wrote:
> >> If the _BCL package is descending, the first level (br->levels[2]) will
> >> be 0, and if the number of
On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 6:47 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Friday, August 02, 2013 02:37:09 PM Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> If the _BCL package is descending, the first level (br->levels[2]) will
>> be 0, and if the number of levels matches the number of steps, we might
>> confuse a returned leve
On Friday, August 02, 2013 02:37:09 PM Felipe Contreras wrote:
> If the _BCL package is descending, the first level (br->levels[2]) will
> be 0, and if the number of levels matches the number of steps, we might
> confuse a returned level to mean the index.
>
> For example:
>
> current_level = m
24 matches
Mail list logo
