On Thu, 09 Oct 2014 21:28:23 +0300, Ran Shalit said:
> Does anybody know what is the minimum expected time for sleep period
> with the cpuidle ?
Both processor dependent and sleep level dependent. There's a certain
amount of latency induced by the hardware waking up.
Look at /sys/devices/system
On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 00:11:09 CST, Rob Landley said:
> P.S. I still hope autoconf dies off and the world wakes up and moves away
> from that. And from makefiles for that matter. But in the meantime, I can
> work around it with enough effort.
What do you propose autoconf and makefiles get repla
On Sat, 03 Jan 2009 19:36:04 CST, Rob Landley said:
> On Saturday 03 January 2009 06:28:22 Ingo Oeser wrote:
> > > +for i in "MSEC 1000" "USEC 100"
> > > +do
> > > + NAME=$(echo $i | awk '{print $1}')
> >
> > cut -d' ' -f1 does the same
> >
> > > + PERIOD=$(echo $i | awk '{print $2}')
> >
> >
On Wed, 02 Jul 2008 02:33:48 +0200, Denys Vlasenko said:
> The purpose of these patches is to make kernel buildable
> with "gcc -ffunction-sections -fdata-sections".
>
> Newer gcc and binutils can do dead code and data removal
> at link time. It is achieved using combination of
> -ffunction-secti
