On 2 November 2012 12:00, Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilim...@ti.com> wrote:
> On Monday 29 October 2012 06:58 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>
>> On 24 October 2012 17:21, Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilim...@ti.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sunday 07 October 2012 01:13 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The ARM platforms take advantage of packing small tasks on few cores.
>>>> This is true even when the cores of a cluster can't be powergated
>>>> independently.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guit...@linaro.org>
>>>> ---
>>>> arch/arm/kernel/topology.c | 5 +++++
>>>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/topology.c b/arch/arm/kernel/topology.c
>>>> index 26c12c6..00511d0 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/arm/kernel/topology.c
>>>> +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/topology.c
>>>> @@ -226,6 +226,11 @@ static inline void update_cpu_power(unsigned int
>>>> cpuid, unsigned int mpidr) {}
>>>> */
>>>> struct cputopo_arm cpu_topology[NR_CPUS];
>>>>
>>>> +int arch_sd_share_power_line(void)
>>>> +{
>>>> + return 0*SD_SHARE_POWERLINE;
>>>> +}
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Making this selection of policy based on sched domain will better. Just
>>> gives the flexibility to choose a separate scheme for big and little
>>> systems which will be very convenient.
>>
>>
>> I agree that it would be more flexible to be able to set it for each level
>>
> Will you be addressing that in next version then ?
Hi Santosh,
yes, I will try to address this point for the next version.
Vincent
>
> Regards
> santosh
>
_______________________________________________
linaro-dev mailing list
linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org
http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
