I am not going to fight hard to prove a point as the code is in good
working conditions, but wanted to finish the discussion ..
On 29-07-15, 22:32, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 4:21 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > On 29-07-15, 15:57, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >> In practice, th
Hi Viresh,
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 4:21 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 29-07-15, 15:57, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> In practice, this means a cpufreq driver registration done in parallel
>> with CPU hotplug.
>
> Not necessarily. Also consider the case where cpufreq driver is already
> working
> fo
On 29-07-15, 15:57, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> In practice, this means a cpufreq driver registration done in parallel
> with CPU hotplug.
Not necessarily. Also consider the case where cpufreq driver is already working
for a set of CPUs. And a new set of CPUs (that will share the policy) are
gettin
Hi Russell,
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 11:11 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux
wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 03:38:03AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Monday, July 27, 2015 08:09:35 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> > On 27-07-15, 15:45, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> > > Say the subsys add callback runs
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 03:38:03AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, July 27, 2015 08:09:35 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > On 27-07-15, 15:45, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > Say the subsys add callback runs for a CPU and it doesn't have a policy.
> > > If it is offline, we ignore it and the
On 29-07-15, 03:38, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> The rule is supposed to be "all of the present CPUs which do not own
> a policy should point to one, unless it doesn't exist". The right
> approach is then to create links from them to a policy object as soon
> as we create one for them. Waiting for
On Monday, July 27, 2015 08:09:35 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 27-07-15, 15:45, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > Say the subsys add callback runs for a CPU and it doesn't have a policy.
> > If it is offline, we ignore it and the add callback won't be executed
> > for it again.
> >
> > In turn, if it is
On 27-07-15, 15:45, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> Say the subsys add callback runs for a CPU and it doesn't have a policy.
> If it is offline, we ignore it and the add callback won't be executed
> for it again.
>
> In turn, if it is online, we create a policy for it and we should (right
> away) link
On Monday, July 27, 2015 07:57:18 AM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 26-07-15, 00:46, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > OK, I'll prepare a new version of that patch then, but as I said this
> > choice means that we'll be creating the links to the policy at the
> > policy creation time going forward.
>
> Atlea
On 26-07-15, 00:46, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> OK, I'll prepare a new version of that patch then, but as I said this
> choice means that we'll be creating the links to the policy at the
> policy creation time going forward.
Atleast for the rc fix, we should do exactly this. Right.
But we can reth
Hi Viresh,
On Sat, Jul 25, 2015 at 3:00 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 25-07-15, 00:17, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> To avoid that warning, use the observation that cpufreq doesn't
>> need to care about CPUs that have never been online.
>
> I have concerns over the very philosophy behind the patch a
On 25-07-15, 00:17, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> To avoid that warning, use the observation that cpufreq doesn't
> need to care about CPUs that have never been online.
I have concerns over the very philosophy behind the patch and so
wanted to discuss more on that.
It will be really confusing to hav
12 matches
Mail list logo
