Hello Eduardo Valentin,
On Thursday, November 06, 2014 1:19 PM, Eduardo Valentin wrote:
> Hello Yadwinder,
>
> On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 04:26:27PM +0530, Yadwinder Singh Brar wrote:
> > Hello Eduardo Valentin,
> >
> > On Thursday, November 06, 2014 2:17 AM, Eduardo Valentin wrote:
> > > Hello Yad
Hello Yadwinder,
On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 04:26:27PM +0530, Yadwinder Singh Brar wrote:
> Hello Eduardo Valentin,
>
> On Thursday, November 06, 2014 2:17 AM, Eduardo Valentin wrote:
> > Hello Yadwinder,
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 05:46:25PM +0530, Yadwinder Singh Brar wrote:
> > > Existing c
Hello Eduardo Valentin,
On Thursday, November 06, 2014 2:17 AM, Eduardo Valentin wrote:
> Hello Yadwinder,
>
> On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 05:46:25PM +0530, Yadwinder Singh Brar wrote:
> > Existing code updates cupfreq policy only while executing
> > cpufreq_apply_cooling() function (i.e. when notify
Hello Yadwinder,
On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 05:46:25PM +0530, Yadwinder Singh Brar wrote:
> Existing code updates cupfreq policy only while executing
> cpufreq_apply_cooling() function (i.e. when notify_device != NOTIFY_INVALID).
Correct. The case you mention is when we receive a notification from
c
Existing code updates cupfreq policy only while executing
cpufreq_apply_cooling() function (i.e. when notify_device != NOTIFY_INVALID).
It doesn't apply constraints when cpufreq policy update happens from any other
place but it should update the cpufreq policy with thermal constraints every
time wh