On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 4:01 PM, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi,
Hi, Julien.
>
> First of all, thank you Oleksandr for starting a thread around CPUFreq
> support.
Thank you for the valued comments.
>
> On 11/16/2017 05:04 PM, Andre Przywara wrote:
>>
>> On 16/11/17 14:57, Oleksandr Tyshchenko wrote:
>
On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 6:41 PM, Andre Przywara
wrote:
> Hi,
Hi Andre
>
>
>
>>> So Xen does not need to throw in its own ideas here. Which would avoid
>>> some of the hard problems we encountered.
>> I got all your point.
>> Just question. Why does existing CPUFreq on x86 have own logic? Do
Hi,
>> So Xen does not need to throw in its own ideas here. Which would avoid
>> some of the hard problems we encountered.
> I got all your point.
> Just question. Why does existing CPUFreq on x86 have own logic? Do we have
> something yet another on ARM that having own logic in Xen doesn't
On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 7:04 PM, Andre Przywara
wrote:
> Hi,
Hi Andre
Thank you for your comments!
>
> On 16/11/17 14:57, Oleksandr Tyshchenko wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 4:28 PM, Andre Przywara
>> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>> Hi Andre, Jassi
>>
>> Thank you for your comments!
>>
>>>
>>> On 14/11/17
Hi,
First of all, thank you Oleksandr for starting a thread around CPUFreq
support.
On 11/16/2017 05:04 PM, Andre Przywara wrote:
On 16/11/17 14:57, Oleksandr Tyshchenko wrote:
On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 4:28 PM, Andre Przywara
wrote:
Anyway, I think we should go step-by-step.
If community agr
Hi,
On 16/11/17 14:57, Oleksandr Tyshchenko wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 4:28 PM, Andre Przywara
> wrote:
>> Hi,
> Hi Andre, Jassi
>
> Thank you for your comments!
>
>>
>> On 14/11/17 20:46, Oleksandr Tyshchenko wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 12:49 PM, Andre Przywara
>>> wrote:
Hi
On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 4:28 PM, Andre Przywara
wrote:
> Hi,
Hi Andre, Jassi
Thank you for your comments!
>
> On 14/11/17 20:46, Oleksandr Tyshchenko wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 12:49 PM, Andre Przywara
>> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>> Hi Andre
>>
>>>
>>> On 13/11/17 19:40, Oleksandr Tyshchenko wrote
On 15 November 2017 at 18:58, Andre Przywara wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 15/11/17 03:03, Jassi Brar wrote:
>> On 15 November 2017 at 02:16, Oleksandr Tyshchenko
>> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 12:49 PM, Andre Przywara
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>
>>> 3. Direct ported SCPI protocol, mailbox infrastructur
Hi,
On 14/11/17 20:46, Oleksandr Tyshchenko wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 12:49 PM, Andre Przywara
> wrote:
>> Hi,
> Hi Andre
>
>>
>> On 13/11/17 19:40, Oleksandr Tyshchenko wrote:
>>> On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 5:21 PM, Andre Przywara
>>> wrote:
Hi,
>>> Hi Andre,
>>>
thanks very
Hi,
On 15/11/17 03:03, Jassi Brar wrote:
> On 15 November 2017 at 02:16, Oleksandr Tyshchenko
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 12:49 PM, Andre Przywara
>> wrote:
>>
>
>> 3. Direct ported SCPI protocol, mailbox infrastructure and the ARM SMC
>> triggered mailbox driver. All componen
On 15 November 2017 at 02:16, Oleksandr Tyshchenko wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 12:49 PM, Andre Przywara
> wrote:
>
> 3. Direct ported SCPI protocol, mailbox infrastructure and the ARM SMC
> triggered mailbox driver. All components except mailbox driver are in
> mainline Linux.
On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 12:49 PM, Andre Przywara
wrote:
> Hi,
Hi Andre
>
> On 13/11/17 19:40, Oleksandr Tyshchenko wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 5:21 PM, Andre Przywara
>> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>> Hi Andre,
>>
>>>
>>> thanks very much for your work on this!
>> Thank you for your comments.
>>
>>>
>>
Hi,
On 13/11/17 19:40, Oleksandr Tyshchenko wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 5:21 PM, Andre Przywara
> wrote:
>> Hi,
> Hi Andre
>
>>
>> thanks very much for your work on this!
> Thank you for your comments.
>
>>
>> On 09/11/17 17:09, Oleksandr Tyshchenko wrote:
>>> From: Oleksandr Tyshchenko
>
On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 5:21 PM, Andre Przywara
wrote:
> Hi,
Hi Andre
>
> thanks very much for your work on this!
Thank you for your comments.
>
> On 09/11/17 17:09, Oleksandr Tyshchenko wrote:
>> From: Oleksandr Tyshchenko
>>
>> Hi, all.
>>
>> The purpose of this RFC patch series is to add CPU
On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 7:18 PM, Andrii Anisov wrote:
> Dear Oleksandr,
Dear Andrii
>
>
> Please consider my `Reviewed-by: Andrii Anisov ` for
> all patches.
>
> What you missed after extracting this stuff from github.
Thanks. I will add.
>
>
> On 09.11.17 19:09, Oleksandr Tyshchenko wrote:
>>
>>
Hi,
thanks very much for your work on this!
On 09/11/17 17:09, Oleksandr Tyshchenko wrote:
> From: Oleksandr Tyshchenko
>
> Hi, all.
>
> The purpose of this RFC patch series is to add CPUFreq support to Xen on ARM.
> Motivation of hypervisor based CPUFreq is to enable one of the main PM
> use
Dear Oleksandr,
Please consider my `Reviewed-by: Andrii Anisov `
for all patches.
What you missed after extracting this stuff from github.
On 09.11.17 19:09, Oleksandr Tyshchenko wrote:
From: Oleksandr Tyshchenko
--
*Andrii Anisov*
___
Xen
From: Oleksandr Tyshchenko
Hi, all.
The purpose of this RFC patch series is to add CPUFreq support to Xen on ARM.
Motivation of hypervisor based CPUFreq is to enable one of the main PM
use-cases in virtualized system powered by Xen hypervisor. Rationale behind
this activity is that CPU virtual
18 matches
Mail list logo
