On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 5:16 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 08-04-16, 23:54, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> From: Rafael J. Wysocki
>> Subject: [PATCH] cpufreq: Skip all governor-related actions for
>> cpufreq_suspended set
>>
>> Since governor operations are generally skipped if cpufreq_suspended
>>
On 08-04-16, 23:54, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki
> Subject: [PATCH] cpufreq: Skip all governor-related actions for
> cpufreq_suspended set
>
> Since governor operations are generally skipped if cpufreq_suspended
> is set, do nothing at all in cpufreq_start_governor() in tha
On Friday, April 08, 2016 11:14:14 AM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 08-04-16, 00:05, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 07, 2016 05:35:03 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
>
> > > That's *ugly* and it works by chance, unless I am misreading it
> > > completely.
> >
> > I'm assuming that what you mea
On Friday, April 08, 2016 11:15:13 AM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 07-04-16, 03:29, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > From: Rafael J. Wysocki
> >
> > Since governor operations are generally skipped if cpufreq_suspended
> > is set, do nothing at all in cpufreq_start_governor() and
> > cpufreq_exit_governor
On 07-04-16, 03:29, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki
>
> Since governor operations are generally skipped if cpufreq_suspended
> is set, do nothing at all in cpufreq_start_governor() and
> cpufreq_exit_governor() in that case.
>
> In particular, this prevents fast frequency swit
On 08-04-16, 00:05, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thursday, April 07, 2016 05:35:03 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > That's *ugly* and it works by chance, unless I am misreading it
> > completely.
>
> I'm assuming that what you mean by "ugly" here is "not really
> straightforward",
> which I agree wit
On Thursday, April 07, 2016 05:35:03 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 07-04-16, 13:44, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > I'm not sure I'm following.
> >
> > Without this patch fast switch is disabled when we offline the nonboot
> > CPUs during suspend, because cpufreq_exit_governor() runs then, but
> > the
On 07-04-16, 13:44, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> I'm not sure I'm following.
>
> Without this patch fast switch is disabled when we offline the nonboot
> CPUs during suspend, because cpufreq_exit_governor() runs then, but
> the cpufreq_governor() called by it does nothing. Also
> cpufreq_governor()
On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 1:32 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 07-04-16, 13:22, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 6:28 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> > On 07-04-16, 03:29, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> >> From: Rafael J. Wysocki
>> >>
>> >> Since governor operations are generally skipped if
On 07-04-16, 13:22, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 6:28 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > On 07-04-16, 03:29, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >> From: Rafael J. Wysocki
> >>
> >> Since governor operations are generally skipped if cpufreq_suspended
> >> is set, do nothing at all in cpufreq
On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 6:28 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 07-04-16, 03:29, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> From: Rafael J. Wysocki
>>
>> Since governor operations are generally skipped if cpufreq_suspended
>> is set, do nothing at all in cpufreq_start_governor() and
>> cpufreq_exit_governor() in that
On 07-04-16, 03:29, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki
>
> Since governor operations are generally skipped if cpufreq_suspended
> is set, do nothing at all in cpufreq_start_governor() and
> cpufreq_exit_governor() in that case.
>
> In particular, this prevents fast frequency swit
12 matches
Mail list logo
