On Wednesday 15 May 2019 at 12:51:57 (+0200), Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 15/05/2019 12:46, Quentin Perret wrote:
> > On Wednesday 15 May 2019 at 11:40:44 (+0100), Quentin Perret wrote:
>
> [ ... ]
>
> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_THERMAL_GOV_POWER_ALLOCATOR
> >> if (capacitance) {
> >>
On 15/05/2019 13:01, Quentin Perret wrote:
> On Wednesday 15 May 2019 at 12:51:57 (+0200), Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> On 15/05/2019 12:46, Quentin Perret wrote:
>>> On Wednesday 15 May 2019 at 11:40:44 (+0100), Quentin Perret wrote:
>>
>> [ ... ]
>>
+#ifdef CONFIG_THERMAL_GOV_POWER_ALLOCATOR
>>>
On Wednesday 15 May 2019 at 12:54:10 (+0200), Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 15/05/2019 12:40, Quentin Perret wrote:
> > On Wednesday 15 May 2019 at 15:52:00 (+0530), Viresh Kumar wrote:
> >> On 15-05-19, 12:16, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> >>> Viresh what do you think ?
> >>
> >> I agree with your last sug
On 15/05/2019 12:40, Quentin Perret wrote:
> On Wednesday 15 May 2019 at 15:52:00 (+0530), Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> On 15-05-19, 12:16, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>> Viresh what do you think ?
>>
>> I agree with your last suggestions. They do make sense.
>
> Good :-)
>
> So, FWIW, the below compiles w/
On 15/05/2019 12:46, Quentin Perret wrote:
> On Wednesday 15 May 2019 at 11:40:44 (+0100), Quentin Perret wrote:
[ ... ]
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_THERMAL_GOV_POWER_ALLOCATOR
>> if (capacitance) {
>> ret = update_freq_table(cpufreq_cdev, capacitance);
>> if (ret) {
On Wednesday 15 May 2019 at 11:40:44 (+0100), Quentin Perret wrote:
> On Wednesday 15 May 2019 at 15:52:00 (+0530), Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > On 15-05-19, 12:16, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> > > Viresh what do you think ?
> >
> > I agree with your last suggestions. They do make sense.
>
> Good :-)
>
>
On Wednesday 15 May 2019 at 15:52:00 (+0530), Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 15-05-19, 12:16, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> > Viresh what do you think ?
>
> I agree with your last suggestions. They do make sense.
Good :-)
So, FWIW, the below compiles w/ or w/o THERMAL_GOV_POWER_ALLOCATOR. I'll
test it and c
On 15-05-19, 12:16, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> Viresh what do you think ?
I agree with your last suggestions. They do make sense.
--
viresh
On 15/05/2019 12:07, Quentin Perret wrote:
> On Wednesday 15 May 2019 at 11:56:30 (+0200), Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> On 15/05/2019 11:17, Quentin Perret wrote:
>>> Hi Daniel,
>>>
>>> On Wednesday 15 May 2019 at 11:06:18 (+0200), Daniel Lezcano wrote:
On 15/05/2019 10:23, Quentin Perret wrote:
>
On Wednesday 15 May 2019 at 11:56:30 (+0200), Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 15/05/2019 11:17, Quentin Perret wrote:
> > Hi Daniel,
> >
> > On Wednesday 15 May 2019 at 11:06:18 (+0200), Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> >> On 15/05/2019 10:23, Quentin Perret wrote:
> >>> In the current state, the perf_domain st
On 15/05/2019 11:17, Quentin Perret wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> On Wednesday 15 May 2019 at 11:06:18 (+0200), Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> On 15/05/2019 10:23, Quentin Perret wrote:
>>> In the current state, the perf_domain struct is fully defined only when
>>> CONFIG_ENERGY_MODEL=y. Since we need to writ
Hi Daniel,
On Wednesday 15 May 2019 at 11:06:18 (+0200), Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 15/05/2019 10:23, Quentin Perret wrote:
> > In the current state, the perf_domain struct is fully defined only when
> > CONFIG_ENERGY_MODEL=y. Since we need to write code that compiles both
> > with or without that
On 15/05/2019 10:23, Quentin Perret wrote:
> In the current state, the perf_domain struct is fully defined only when
> CONFIG_ENERGY_MODEL=y. Since we need to write code that compiles both
> with or without that option in the thermal framework, make sure to
> actually define the struct regardless o
13 matches
Mail list logo
