On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 12:08:38PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Oct 2018, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> > The specially case for SKL for not controlled sagv
> > is already taken care inside intel_enable_sagv, so there's
> > no need to duplicate the check here.
> >
> > v2: Go one step further
On Fri, 26 Oct 2018, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> The specially case for SKL for not controlled sagv
> is already taken care inside intel_enable_sagv, so there's
> no need to duplicate the check here.
>
> v2: Go one step further and remove skl special case. (Jani)
> v3: Separate runtime status handle
The specially case for SKL for not controlled sagv
is already taken care inside intel_enable_sagv, so there's
no need to duplicate the check here.
v2: Go one step further and remove skl special case. (Jani)
v3: Separate runtime status handle from has_sagv flag.
v4: Go back and accept simple Jani
On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 01:13:51PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Oct 2018, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> > But I thought while doing this I could consolidade it along with all
> > the other has_feature cases.
> >
> > I believe we should either have everything as info.has_feature or everything
>
On Tue, 23 Oct 2018, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> But I thought while doing this I could consolidade it along with all
> the other has_feature cases.
>
> I believe we should either have everything as info.has_feature or everything
> as has_feature().
>
> for instance if we end up ever having 2 platforms
On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 10:23:39AM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Oct 2018, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> > Let's add a platform has_sagv instead of having a full
> > function that handle platform by platform.
> >
> > The specially case for SKL for not controlled sagv
> > is already taken care
On Mon, 22 Oct 2018, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> Let's add a platform has_sagv instead of having a full
> function that handle platform by platform.
>
> The specially case for SKL for not controlled sagv
> is already taken care inside intel_enable_sagv, so there's
> no need to duplicate the check here.
Em Seg, 2018-10-22 às 17:06 -0700, Rodrigo Vivi escreveu:
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 04:48:50PM -0700, Paulo Zanoni wrote:
> > Em Seg, 2018-10-22 às 09:57 -0700, Rodrigo Vivi escreveu:
> > > Let's add a platform has_sagv instead of having a full
> > > function that handle platform by platform.
> >
On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 04:48:50PM -0700, Paulo Zanoni wrote:
> Em Seg, 2018-10-22 às 09:57 -0700, Rodrigo Vivi escreveu:
> > Let's add a platform has_sagv instead of having a full
> > function that handle platform by platform.
> >
> > The specially case for SKL for not controlled sagv
> > is
Em Seg, 2018-10-22 às 09:57 -0700, Rodrigo Vivi escreveu:
> Let's add a platform has_sagv instead of having a full
> function that handle platform by platform.
>
> The specially case for SKL for not controlled sagv
> is already taken care inside intel_enable_sagv, so there's
> no need to
Let's add a platform has_sagv instead of having a full
function that handle platform by platform.
The specially case for SKL for not controlled sagv
is already taken care inside intel_enable_sagv, so there's
no need to duplicate the check here.
v2: Go one step further and remove skl special
On Fri, 19 Oct 2018, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> Let's add a platform has_sagv instead of having a full
> function that handle platform by platform.
>
> The specially case for SKL for not controlled sagv
> is already taken care inside intel_enable_sagv, so there's
> no need to duplicate the check here.
Let's add a platform has_sagv instead of having a full
function that handle platform by platform.
The specially case for SKL for not controlled sagv
is already taken care inside intel_enable_sagv, so there's
no need to duplicate the check here.
v2: Go one step further and remove skl special
13 matches
Mail list logo
