On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 10:15 PM, Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org wrote:
On Thu, 2010-05-27 at 15:19 -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
On Thu, 27 May 2010, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
I still don't see how blocking applications will cause missed wakeups in
anything but a buggy application at worst,
-Original Message-
From: linux-omap-ow...@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-omap-
ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Vimal Singh
Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2010 11:56 PM
To: Ghorai, Sukumar
Cc: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] omap3 gpmc: functionality enhancement
On Thu, 27 May 2010 21:55:26 -0700
Brian Swetland swetl...@google.com wrote:
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 3:55 PM, Alan Cox a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk wrote:
This started because the Android people came to a meeting that was put
together of various folks to try and sort of the big blockage in
On Thu, 27 May 2010 22:09:37 -0400
Ben Gamari bgamari.f...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, 26 May 2010 14:24:30 +0200, Florian Mickler flor...@mickler.org
wrote:
Because he is using a robust kernel that provides suspend blockers and
is preventing the vampire from sucking power?
Suspend
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 9:30 PM, Luke-Jr l...@dashjr.org wrote:
On Wednesday 26 May 2010 05:48:58 pm Kevin Hilman wrote:
FYI... this also works on OMAP2.
I tested it on my n810 along with UART hwmod conversion and it works
just fine there.
Is it somehow different from the basic 8250 driver
On Thu, 27 May 2010 15:35:18 +0200 (CEST)
Thomas Gleixner t...@linutronix.de wrote:
On Thu, 27 May 2010, Florian Mickler wrote:
On Wed, 26 May 2010 22:03:37 +0200
Vitaly Wool vitalyw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 9:56 PM, Florian Mickler flor...@mickler.org
wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Premi, Sanjeev
Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2010 10:30 PM
[...]
3) Was there any specific need to tie the functions opp_get_voltage
and others to cpufreq only?
yes, because without cpufreq there is no transitions in the system :)
[sp] I does - via
On Thu, 27 May 2010, Alan Stern wrote:
On Thu, 27 May 2010, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
The two of you are talking at cross purposes. Thomas is referring to
idle-based suspend and Matthew is talking about forced suspend.
Yes, and forced suspend to disk is the same as force suspend to
On Thu, 27 May 2010 20:05:39 +0200 (CEST)
Thomas Gleixner t...@linutronix.de wrote:
On Thu, 27 May 2010, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 07:24:02PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
Oh no. They paper over a short coming. If there is a pending event,
the kernel knows that.
Op 28 mei 2010, om 09:39 heeft Menon, Nishanth het volgende geschreven:
-Original Message-
From: Premi, Sanjeev
Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2010 10:30 PM
[...]
3) Was there any specific need to tie the functions opp_get_voltage
and others to cpufreq only?
yes, because without
Android does not only run on phones. It is possible that no android
devices have ACPI, but I don't know that for a fact. What I do know is
that people want to run Android on x86 hardware and supporting suspend
could be very benficial.
Sufficently beneficial to justify putting all this stuff
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 1:44 AM, Florian Mickler flor...@mickler.org wrote:
On Thu, 27 May 2010 20:05:39 +0200 (CEST)
Thomas Gleixner t...@linutronix.de wrote:
On Thu, 27 May 2010, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 07:24:02PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
Oh no. They paper
* Arve Hj?nnev?g a...@android.com wrote:
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 3:23 PM, Alan Cox a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk wrote:
On Thu, 27 May 2010 23:09:49 +0100
Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 11:08:06PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
This is I believe robust (and
Keep in mind, though, that a solution which is acceptable for Android
has to include making sure that crappy applications don't cause the
Ted if you are speaking for Android do you think you should post from a
google address or with a google .sig ?
battery to get drained. There seem to be
2010/5/28 Alan Cox a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk:
Android does not only run on phones. It is possible that no android
devices have ACPI, but I don't know that for a fact. What I do know is
that people want to run Android on x86 hardware and supporting suspend
could be very benficial.
Sufficently
Ted
As a PS to the previous email the situation has I think more choices than
you portray.
Given the need for various constraints imposed by drivers for things like
RT it's entirely possible that a solution ends up being something like
Kernel proper:
Turn suspend block kernel API into an
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 2:21 AM, Ingo Molnar mi...@elte.hu wrote:
* Arve Hj?nnev?g a...@android.com wrote:
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 3:23 PM, Alan Cox a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk wrote:
On Thu, 27 May 2010 23:09:49 +0100
Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at
On Don, 2010-05-27 at 22:28 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 05:24:28PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
Would it help to divide the application into two processes, one of
which receives events and the other does the drawing?
At the point where you're rewriting the
On Fri, 28 May 2010 02:18:06 -0700
Arve Hjønnevåg a...@android.com wrote:
IMO, the whole concept is defining 2 modes of operation:
1. user interacts with the device (at least one suspend block active)
2. user doesn't interact with the device (zero suspend block active)
That is a
On Thu, 2010-05-27 at 20:59 -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
On Fri, 28 May 2010, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
And the forced-suspend design relies on the fact that processes remain
frozen throughout. If we leave some processes unfrozen and one of them
somehow becomes runnable, that means we
On Fri, 2010-05-28 at 00:31 -0400, ty...@mit.edu wrote:
Keep in mind, though, that a solution which is acceptable for Android
has to include making sure that crappy applications don't cause the
battery to get drained. There seem to be some people who seem
adamently against this requirement.
This is a much harder question to answer that what we need to use
opportunistic suspend. The question we ask is more like this: Is all
important work complete?. In the simplest case these can be the same,
I don't believe you can answer that question without telepathy and a
crystal ball.
The
On Thu, 2010-05-27 at 17:49 -0700, Mike Chan wrote:
Even if we used the proposed QoS replacement, are there suggestions on
how to keep the cpu idle for longer than 2 seconds in Linux without
using suspend?
What exactly is stopping it from being idle?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the
On Thu, 2010-05-27 at 17:45 -0700, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
What happens if the user presses the button right before you set QoS
of 'user apps' to QS_NONE?
To me it looks like this solution would result in this sequence which
may ignore the button press:
Button pushed
Button
On Fri, 2010-05-28 at 00:50 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
Today idle means no task running
If you are prepared to rephrase that as no task that matters is running
what would need to answer ?
I'm not sure we need or want to go there.
Why not simply let upatedb block on its IO because its QoS policy
2010/5/28 Alan Cox a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk:
This is a much harder question to answer that what we need to use
opportunistic suspend. The question we ask is more like this: Is all
important work complete?. In the simplest case these can be the same,
I don't believe you can answer that
My laptop behaves in
that way if for example the battery is almost flat. Your suspend blocker
would cause me to lose all my work with a flat battery. This is another
example of why the application must not be the policy manager.
You can still force suspend when the battery gets low.
2010/5/28 Alan Cox a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk:
My laptop behaves in
that way if for example the battery is almost flat. Your suspend blocker
would cause me to lose all my work with a flat battery. This is another
example of why the application must not be the policy manager.
You can
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 7:13 PM, Govindraj.R govindraj.r...@ti.com wrote:
This patch adds driver support for OMAP3/4 high speed UART.
The driver is made separate from 8250 driver as we cannot
over load 8250 driver with omap platform specific configuration for
features like DMA, it makes
2010/5/28 Florian Mickler flor...@mickler.org:
On Fri, 28 May 2010 02:18:06 -0700
Arve Hjønnevåg a...@android.com wrote:
IMO, the whole concept is defining 2 modes of operation:
1. user interacts with the device (at least one suspend block active)
2. user doesn't interact with the
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 10:37:13AM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
The other vendors appear to be managing nicely without magic blockers. I
conjecture therefore there are other solutions.
Actually, no. A badly behaved application will kill the N900's battery
life. Nobody else has managed nicely -
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 12:03:08PM +0200, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
On Don, 2010-05-27 at 22:28 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
At the point where you're rewriting the application you can just make it
adhere to our current behavioural standards anyway.
Thank you for confirming that the
ext Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 10:37:13AM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
The other vendors appear to be managing nicely without magic blockers. I
conjecture therefore there are other solutions.
Actually, no. A badly behaved application will kill the N900's battery
life.
On Fri, 28 May 2010 04:35:34 -0700
Arve Hjønnevåg a...@android.com wrote:
2010/5/28 Florian Mickler flor...@mickler.org:
It sounds like it could save some duplication of effort to integrate
suspend into the idle-framework. Purpose-fulness could be just
another measure of idle.
To me
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 2:35 AM, Kevin Hilman
khil...@deeprootsystems.com wrote:
Hi Govindraj,
Govindraj.R govindraj.r...@ti.com writes:
Patch series is based on remotes/origin/pm-wip/govindraj
branch from Kevin's PM tree.
Patches are tested with 3430SDP.
Have updated 2420/2430 hwmod data
Ok lets try and produce something more concrete. The control groups may
be the wrong tool but we've got several such tools already
Kernel involved
acquire:mark myself important (into cgroup important)
acquire(timeout)ditto, plus app timer/timeout handler
ext Theodore Tso wrote:
I've seen very hard to debug situations with Maemo where users are essentially
asked to uninstall all their applications, and then install them back one at a
time, waiting several hours between each install for a charge/discharge cycle,
to figure out which
On Fri, 2010-05-28 at 13:21 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
[Total kernel changes
Ability to mark/unmark a scheduler control group as outside of
some parts of idle consideration. Generically useful and
localised. Group latency will do most jobs fine (Zygo is correct
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 01:21:38PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
So I put my phone down
The UI manager gets told the phone is 'down'
Ten seconds later it is still down
- wakeup event that should be delivered to untrusted app arrives
here
At this point you may mark the
On May 28, 2010, at 8:16 AM, Theodore Tso wrote:
I've seen very hard to debug situations with Maemo where users are
essentially asked to uninstall all their applications, and then install them
back one at a time, waiting several hours between each install for a
charge/discharge cycle,
On May 28, 2010, at 8:49 AM, Igor Stoppa wrote:
ext Theodore Tso wrote:
I've seen very hard to debug situations with Maemo where users are
essentially asked to uninstall all their applications, and then install them
back one at a time, waiting several hours between each install for a
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 5:26 AM, Igor Stoppa igor.sto...@nokia.com wrote:
ext Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 10:37:13AM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
The other vendors appear to be managing nicely without magic blockers. I
conjecture therefore there are other solutions.
Actually,
On Fri, 28 May 2010 14:30:36 +0200
Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org wrote:
On Fri, 2010-05-28 at 13:21 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
[Total kernel changes
Ability to mark/unmark a scheduler control group as outside of
some parts of idle consideration. Generically useful and
On Friday 28 May 2010 02:11:29 am you wrote:
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 9:30 PM, Luke-Jr l...@dashjr.org wrote:
On Wednesday 26 May 2010 05:48:58 pm Kevin Hilman wrote:
FYI... this also works on OMAP2.
I tested it on my n810 along with UART hwmod conversion and it works
just fine there.
ext Theodore Tso wrote:
Well, yes, if the company strategy is to have a walled garden ala the Apple iPhone App store, life is much simpler.
No, the strategy is to try to merge commercial and community needs.
We do support signed repositories.
The community has control on the public
ext Brian Swetland wrote:
At a certain point, if one side of the argument is using N900 / OMAP3
works just fine as is (which has certainly been the case stated by a
number of folks throughout these discussions), I think it's a little
unrealistic to express shock that somebody argues the
On Fri, 2010-05-28 at 14:02 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
On Fri, 28 May 2010 14:30:36 +0200
Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org wrote:
On Fri, 2010-05-28 at 13:21 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
[Total kernel changes
Ability to mark/unmark a scheduler control group as outside of
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 05:49:36PM -0700, Mike Chan wrote:
Even if we used the proposed QoS replacement, are there suggestions on
how to keep the cpu idle for longer than 2 seconds in Linux without
using suspend?
I believe that the Maximum idle time on 32-bit is 2 seconds issue is
solved in
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 6:32 AM, Igor Stoppa igor.sto...@nokia.com wrote:
What I consider plain wrong i to claim that since there are this many units
out, some code should be merged.
I've never suggested that we should get a get-out-of-code-review-free
card or be automatically merged based on
On 05/28/2010 10:56 AM, Koen Kooi wrote:
Op 28 mei 2010, om 09:39 heeft Menon, Nishanth het volgende geschreven:
-Original Message-
From: Premi, Sanjeev
Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2010 10:30 PM
[...]
3) Was there any specific need to tie the functions opp_get_voltage
and others to
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 04:32:15PM +0300, Igor Stoppa wrote:
What I consider plain wrong i to claim that since there are this
many units out, some code should be merged.
A company needs to cut corners sometimes when making a product but
this should not affect upstream code.
Linus will
-Original Message-
From: Menon, Nishanth
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 7:03 PM
To: Koen Kooi
Cc: Premi, Sanjeev; linux-omap@vger.kernel.org;
eduardo.valen...@nokia.com; Kevin Hilman
Subject: Re: omap3 pm: dependency between opp layer and cpufreq
On 05/28/2010 10:56 AM, Koen Kooi
The UI manager gets told the phone is 'down'
Ten seconds later it is still down
- wakeup event that should be delivered to untrusted app arrives
here
At this point you may mark the downtrodden group as ignored between the
untrusted app receiving the event and the
On Fri, 28 May 2010 12:41:23 +0100
Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 10:37:13AM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
The other vendors appear to be managing nicely without magic blockers. I
conjecture therefore there are other solutions.
Actually, no. A badly behaved
I think you are missing the point. It works fine if the alarm caused
the wakeup, but if you had just used your system and your inactivity
timeout expired just as your alarm goes off, the alarm will not wake
the system, nor does it prevent it from suspending.
As far as I can tell (and its an
Hello Tony,
I need your comment/input - whether we need an additional file for NAND support
in ZOOM2/3?
In current codebase has a board-sdp-flash.c file. I think we can remove -sdp-
from board-sdp-flash.c and reuse the file for ZOOM boards or any other upcoming
board(s).
Advantage:
a. No
ext Brian Swetland wrote:
How is it flawed? Serious question.
I would avoid repeating all the good arguments given so far, but to make
it short:
* I believe runtime PM is a much better starting point (at least for the
type of HW targeted at mobile devices) because it mimics an
On 05/28/2010 03:42 PM, Premi, Sanjeev wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Menon, Nishanth
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 7:03 PM
To: Koen Kooi
Cc: Premi, Sanjeev; linux-omap@vger.kernel.org;
eduardo.valen...@nokia.com; Kevin Hilman
Subject: Re: omap3 pm: dependency between opp layer and cpufreq
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 02:54:20PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
I am not convinced at this point. If the app gets put into the important
group by the driver then you don't need to poke a policy manager.
Ok, I think I've misunderstood you. You're actually saying that only
applications that are
-Original Message-
From: Menon, Nishanth
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 7:26 PM
To: Premi, Sanjeev
Cc: Koen Kooi; linux-omap@vger.kernel.org;
eduardo.valen...@nokia.com; Kevin Hilman
Subject: Re: omap3 pm: dependency between opp layer and cpufreq
On 05/28/2010 03:42 PM, Premi,
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 02:55:26PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
The following cannot occur on my laptop for simple idling
Alarm
Suspend
because the Alarm resets the suspend timer when it is delivered.
Userspace is about to write to /sys/power/state when it gets scheduled.
On Fri, 28 May 2010, Alan Cox wrote:
Since I think we've now rejected the feature, do we have a clear picture
about
what the Android people should do _instead_ and yet keep the battery life
they
want? Because I don't think telling let them do what they want, who cares
is right.
Hello.
Ajay Kumar Gupta wrote:
AM35x has musb interface (version 1.8) and uses CPPI41 DMA engine.
It has USB phy built inside the IP itself.
Also added ARCH_AM35x which is required to differentiate musb ips
between OMAP3x and AM35x. This config would be used to for below
purposes,
-
That's very good. But if it is done in a conceptually flawed way, some
better solution should be considered for upstream merge.
How is it flawed? Serious question.
- It means changing drivers and quite a few apps
- It doesn't solve the problem of rogue apps if they end up owning locks
-
ext ty...@mit.edu wrote:
Linus will disagree with you there. Linus *has* merged code on the
basis that it is shipping in distributions, regardless of the fact
that some developers objected to it. Sometimes perfect should not
be the enemy of good enough shipping code.
good enough is very
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 05:14:31PM +0300, Igor Stoppa wrote:
I have seen very good proposals for saner solutions.
Is that progress?
The proposals so far involve either redefining the problem space or
being inherently racey. It may be that we can redefine the problem space
in such a way that
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 7:21 AM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 05:14:31PM +0300, Igor Stoppa wrote:
I have seen very good proposals for saner solutions.
Is that progress?
The proposals so far involve either redefining the problem space or
being
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 05:44:18PM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote:
Also, the last patch in lmb branch ARM: use LMB to allocate system
memory MMIO resource structures causes both osk5912 and n900
to hang very early. Maybe I'm missing some patch again..
I'll drop this patch for the time being - we
As per errata i580, Core should not attempt to goto OSWR/OFF state if
DPLL3 is in manual lock mode (CM_AUTOIDLE_PLL[AUTO_CORE_DPLL] = 0).
This WA is applicable only if WA for errata i581 is applied since DPLL3
is put in manual lock mode as part of the i581 errata.
This patch has been developed on
On Fri, 28 May 2010, Alan Cox wrote:
If I push the button we get an IRQ
We come out of power save
The app gets poked
The app may be unimportant but the IRQ means we have a new timeout of
some form to run down to idle
The app marks itself important
The app stays awake for 60 seconds
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 07:29:27AM -0700, Brian Swetland wrote:
I need to think more about the cgroups approach, but I'm pretty sure
it still suffers from wakeup race situations, and due to the
complexity of userspace (at least ours), I suspect it would risk
--- On Fri, 5/28/10, Sergei Shtylyov sshtyl...@mvista.com wrote:
Ajay Kumar Gupta wrote:
AM35x has musb interface (version 1.8) and uses CPPI41
DMA engine.
It has USB phy built inside the IP itself.
So it's more like DaVinci (earlier CPPI as well as
integrated PHY) than OMAP3...
Govindraj govindraj...@gmail.com writes:
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 2:35 AM, Kevin Hilman
khil...@deeprootsystems.com wrote:
Hi Govindraj,
Govindraj.R govindraj.r...@ti.com writes:
Patch series is based on remotes/origin/pm-wip/govindraj
branch from Kevin's PM tree.
Patches are tested with
On Fri, 28 May 2010, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Thu, 2010-05-27 at 20:59 -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
On Fri, 28 May 2010, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
And the forced-suspend design relies on the fact that processes remain
frozen throughout. If we leave some processes unfrozen and one of
On Fri, 2010-05-28 at 15:20 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Fri, 2010-05-28 at 14:02 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
On Fri, 28 May 2010 14:30:36 +0200
Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org wrote:
On Fri, 2010-05-28 at 13:21 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
[Total kernel changes
Ability
I think the suggestion that has the closet fit with what we're trying
to accomplish is Ingo's (or perhaps Ingo's explanation of Alan's):
http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/5/28/106 where it's implemented as a
constraint of some sort.
I think we ended up in the same place on our own.
Arve points out
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 8:06 AM, Alan Cox a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk wrote:
Arve points out that qos constraint objects could work (but not if
specifically tied to apps): http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/5/28/120 though
he suggests that latency constraints don't represent this as well as
state
On Fri, 28 May 2010, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
It seems most of the problems the suspend-blockers are trying to solve
are due to the fact of not running runnable tasks.
That is only partially correct.
If Android were using idle-time PM and not forced suspend, then yes --
not running runnable
On Fri, 28 May 2010 15:02:37 +0100
Ok, I think I've misunderstood you. You're actually saying that only
applications that are trusted to behave well are allowed to receive
wakeup events? Yes, that makes implementation significantly easier. If
To receive them in a manner that they are
On Fri, 2010-05-28 at 10:35 -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
The app is busy doing something else unimportant
We do into power save
Push a button, generate an IRQ
Come out of power save
No app to poke
* System goes back to sleep and eventually wakes up
ext Alan Cox wrote:
Be that as it may the question of how you manage a naughty app is a good
one. Historically we've managed them for network abuse, memory abuse, cpu
use abuse, access rights, but not yet power.
Whether that looks like
setrlimit(pid, LIMIT_CHARGE, 150mWH);
or
On Fri, 28 May 2010, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Fri, 2010-05-28 at 10:35 -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
The app is busy doing something else unimportant
We do into power save
Push a button, generate an IRQ
Come out of power save
No app to poke
David Brownell wrote:
incompatible Kconfig role setting
there's a patch making that a warning instead of an #error
if I'm not wrong.
It's not an #error, it's a dev_err().
But more to the point, it's reporting a real error. As
the comment in the code explains:
/* The
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 12:03 PM, Ghorai, Sukumar s-gho...@ti.com wrote:
-Original Message-
From: linux-omap-ow...@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-omap-
ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Vimal Singh
Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2010 11:56 PM
To: Ghorai, Sukumar
Cc:
2010/5/28 Gadiyar, Anand gadi...@ti.com:
David Brownell wrote:
(Okay, I do know anyone who compiles a custom kernel of
this sort is likely capable of patching the board files
as needed to downgrade to the desired mode. But I still
think the patch at [1] is useful to have.)
David NAK the
With latest linus's tip omap3_defconfig is broken.
From the commit 8feb337475aaf, board-omap3stalker.c seems to
be missed out.
LD init/built-in.o
LD .tmp_vmlinux1
arch/arm/mach-omap2/built-in.o: In function `ads7846_dev_init':
linux-2.6/arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-omap3stalker.c:542:
On Fri, 28 May 2010 16:59:54 +0200
Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org wrote:
So lets look at the problem, we want to be frugal with power, this means
that the system as a whole should strive to do nothing. And we want to
enforce this as strict as possible.
An interesting thought might be to
sorry, some fixes.
2010/5/28 Ming Lei tom.leim...@gmail.com:
2010/5/28 Gadiyar, Anand gadi...@ti.com:
David Brownell wrote:
(Okay, I do know anyone who compiles a custom kernel of
this sort is likely capable of patching the board files
as needed to downgrade to the desired mode. But I still
The MMC1 and MMC2 cards have seperate LDO supplies. Current code assumes
that they are powered by same LDO.
This patch fixes the same and has VAUX1 as supply to MMC2 card.
Signed-off-by: Rajendra Nayak rna...@ti.com
Signed-off-by: Sukumar Ghorai s-gho...@ti.com
Signed-off-by: Kishore Kadiyala
I think Arve's concern was the representation of the I care, but only
a little or just low enough to ensure threads must run level which
is what suspend blockers would map to (low enough to ensure we
shouldn't halt the world but not necessarily implying a hard latency
constraint beyond that).
On Fri, 28 May 2010, Alan Cox wrote:
I think Arve's concern was the representation of the I care, but only
a little or just low enough to ensure threads must run level which
is what suspend blockers would map to (low enough to ensure we
shouldn't halt the world but not necessarily
On Fre, 2010-05-28 at 12:45 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 12:03:08PM +0200, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
On Don, 2010-05-27 at 22:28 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
At the point where you're rewriting the application you can just make it
adhere to our current
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 08:13:08AM -0700, Brian Swetland wrote:
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 8:06 AM, Alan Cox a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk wrote:
They fix a general problem in terms of a driver specific item. We end up
making changes around the tree but we make everyone happy not just
Android. Also
Nishanth menon menon.nisha...@gmail.com writes:
[...]
'mpurate' is usually used when cpufreq is not required. It
means - set me up for the specified freq and forget it. There
is no further change needed/ possible.
That opens up the question - why not use cpufreq with userspace
governor
Santosh Shilimkar santosh.shilim...@ti.com writes:
With latest linus's tip omap3_defconfig is broken.
This subject/shortlog is not terribly useful for git history. it
should say something like
OMAP: Stalker board: update usage of GPIO debounce API
or something like that. The changelog
On Fri, 2010-05-28 at 13:27 -0400, Zygo Blaxell wrote:
From my reading of this thread, there's a lot of overlap between
suspendblockers and constraints. Many use cases are served equally
well with one or the other,
If using suspend-blockers,
Please explain to me how:
- I will avoid the
-Original Message-
From: Vimal Singh [mailto:vimal.neww...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 9:14 PM
To: Ghorai, Sukumar
Cc: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] omap3 gpmc: functionality enhancement
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 12:03 PM, Ghorai, Sukumar
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 8:48 AM, David Brownell davi...@pacbell.net wrote:
+#ifdef CONFIG_USB_MUSB_OTG
+ .mode
= MUSB_OTG,
+#elif defined(CONFIG_USB_MUSB_HDRC_HCD)
+ .mode
= MUSB_HOST,
+#elif defined(CONFIG_USB_GADGET_MUSB_HDRC)
.mode
= MUSB_PERIPHERAL,
--- On Fri, 5/28/10, Steve Sakoman sako...@gmail.com wrote:
By the way ... the #ifdeffery should indeed vanish
from all board
configs except the Davinci DM6446 EVM. That board is
kind of quirky
in terms of USB support, and needs jumpering to get
host or peripheral mode (and can't do
Nishanth Menon n...@ti.com writes:
For board files which choose to override the defaults, the existing
mechanism will work, for boards that would like to work with defaults,
allow init_common_hw to call init_opp_table to initialize if not
already initialized. this will allow all omap boards
1 - 100 of 123 matches
Mail list logo
