On Saturday, February 09, 2013 07:40:26 AM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 9 February 2013 05:38, Dirk Brandewie wrote:
> > On 02/08/2013 03:56 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >>
> >> On Friday, February 08, 2013 09:02:37 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Friday, February 08, 2013 08:06:52 PM
On Saturday, February 09, 2013 07:40:26 AM Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 9 February 2013 05:38, Dirk Brandewie dirk.brande...@gmail.com wrote:
On 02/08/2013 03:56 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Friday, February 08, 2013 09:02:37 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Friday, February 08, 2013
On 9 February 2013 05:38, Dirk Brandewie wrote:
> On 02/08/2013 03:56 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>
>> On Friday, February 08, 2013 09:02:37 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>>
>>> On Friday, February 08, 2013 08:06:52 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 8 February 2013 18:02, Rafael J. Wysocki
On Friday, February 08, 2013 04:08:49 PM Dirk Brandewie wrote:
> On 02/08/2013 03:56 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Friday, February 08, 2013 09:02:37 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >> On Friday, February 08, 2013 08:06:52 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> >>> On 8 February 2013 18:02, Rafael J.
On 02/08/2013 03:56 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Friday, February 08, 2013 09:02:37 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Friday, February 08, 2013 08:06:52 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 8 February 2013 18:02, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
So as I said, please rework the fixes on top of
On Friday, February 08, 2013 09:02:37 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Friday, February 08, 2013 08:06:52 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > On 8 February 2013 18:02, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > So as I said, please rework the fixes on top of linux-pm.git/pm-cpufreq.
> >
> > I already did. Please
On Friday, February 08, 2013 08:06:52 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 8 February 2013 18:02, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > So as I said, please rework the fixes on top of linux-pm.git/pm-cpufreq.
>
> I already did. Please check for-rafael branch
Cool. This is the one I'm supposed to apply, then?
>
On 8 February 2013 18:02, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> So as I said, please rework the fixes on top of linux-pm.git/pm-cpufreq.
I already did. Please check for-rafael branch
> Moreover, I'd very much prefer it if you fixed the problems introduced by
> b8eed8a "cpufreq: Simplify
On Friday, February 08, 2013 08:20:55 AM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 8 February 2013 05:03, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > I should have done that before, sorry about it.
> >
> > Can you please rework this series on top of linux-pm.git/pm-cpufreq and
> > try to avoid introducing new issues this time?
On Friday, February 08, 2013 08:20:55 AM Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 8 February 2013 05:03, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote:
I should have done that before, sorry about it.
Can you please rework this series on top of linux-pm.git/pm-cpufreq and
try to avoid introducing new issues this
On 8 February 2013 18:02, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote:
So as I said, please rework the fixes on top of linux-pm.git/pm-cpufreq.
I already did. Please check for-rafael branch
Moreover, I'd very much prefer it if you fixed the problems introduced by
b8eed8a cpufreq: Simplify
On Friday, February 08, 2013 08:06:52 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 8 February 2013 18:02, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote:
So as I said, please rework the fixes on top of linux-pm.git/pm-cpufreq.
I already did. Please check for-rafael branch
Cool. This is the one I'm supposed to apply,
On Friday, February 08, 2013 09:02:37 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Friday, February 08, 2013 08:06:52 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 8 February 2013 18:02, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote:
So as I said, please rework the fixes on top of linux-pm.git/pm-cpufreq.
I already did. Please
On 02/08/2013 03:56 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Friday, February 08, 2013 09:02:37 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Friday, February 08, 2013 08:06:52 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 8 February 2013 18:02, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote:
So as I said, please rework the fixes on top of
On Friday, February 08, 2013 04:08:49 PM Dirk Brandewie wrote:
On 02/08/2013 03:56 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Friday, February 08, 2013 09:02:37 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Friday, February 08, 2013 08:06:52 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 8 February 2013 18:02, Rafael J. Wysocki
On 9 February 2013 05:38, Dirk Brandewie dirk.brande...@gmail.com wrote:
On 02/08/2013 03:56 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Friday, February 08, 2013 09:02:37 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Friday, February 08, 2013 08:06:52 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 8 February 2013 18:02, Rafael J.
On Fri, Feb 08, 2013 at 10:39:13AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 8 February 2013 04:37, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > BTW, there still are locking problems in linux-next. Why do we need
> > to take cpufreq_driver_lock() around driver->init() in cpufreq_add_dev(),
> > in particular?
> I thought
On 8 February 2013 05:03, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> I should have done that before, sorry about it.
np
> Can you please rework this series on top of linux-pm.git/pm-cpufreq and
> try to avoid introducing new issues this time?
Sorry for this. I didn't got any such issues on my system and i
On 8 February 2013 04:37, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> BTW, there still are locking problems in linux-next. Why do we need
> to take cpufreq_driver_lock() around driver->init() in cpufreq_add_dev(),
> in particular?
I thought a bit more and realized there is no such limitation on
On 8 February 2013 01:09, Artem Savkov wrote:
> Tested out linux-pm.git/linux-next with this patches pulled. It seems
> that my systemd-sleep issue is fixed, however there is a new 'sleeping
> in invalid context' bug during boot:
>
> [ 12.736484] BUG: sleeping function called from invalid
On 8 February 2013 05:03, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> I should have done that before, sorry about it.
>
> Can you please rework this series on top of linux-pm.git/pm-cpufreq and
> try to avoid introducing new issues this time?
Even i want to do that, but when i fetch your repo i don't see all
On 8 February 2013 04:37, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thursday, February 07, 2013 06:52:20 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> On 7 February 2013 18:35, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> > I think they all make sense, so applied to linux-next.
>> >
>> > I would prefer not to make any more changes to cpufreq
On Friday, February 08, 2013 12:33:14 AM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thursday, February 07, 2013 03:57:42 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > Hi Rafael,
> >
> > This is another unplanned patchset for all the platforms that i broke. :)
> >
> > Okay, there are two important fixes (1 & 4) and two general
On Thursday, February 07, 2013 03:57:42 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> Hi Rafael,
>
> This is another unplanned patchset for all the platforms that i broke. :)
>
> Okay, there are two important fixes (1 & 4) and two general cleanups (2 & 3).
> I
> hope most of the issues would be resolved by these
On Thursday, February 07, 2013 06:52:20 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 7 February 2013 18:35, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > I think they all make sense, so applied to linux-next.
> >
> > I would prefer not to make any more changes to cpufreq before v3.9 from now
> > on,
> > except for fixes and
On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 03:57:42PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> Hi Rafael,
>
> This is another unplanned patchset for all the platforms that i broke. :)
>
> Okay, there are two important fixes (1 & 4) and two general cleanups (2 & 3).
> I
> hope most of the issues would be resolved by these and
On 7 February 2013 18:35, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> I think they all make sense, so applied to linux-next.
>
> I would prefer not to make any more changes to cpufreq before v3.9 from now
> on,
> except for fixes and maybe the Drik's patchset that I kind of scheduled for
Dirk :)
> merging into
On Thursday, February 07, 2013 03:57:42 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> Hi Rafael,
>
> This is another unplanned patchset for all the platforms that i broke. :)
>
> Okay, there are two important fixes (1 & 4) and two general cleanups (2 & 3).
> I
> hope most of the issues would be resolved by these
Hi Rafael,
This is another unplanned patchset for all the platforms that i broke. :)
Okay, there are two important fixes (1 & 4) and two general cleanups (2 & 3). I
hope most of the issues would be resolved by these and we would be able to push
clean cpufreq core into 3.9.
I have pushed them in
On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 03:57:42PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
Hi Rafael,
This is another unplanned patchset for all the platforms that i broke. :)
Okay, there are two important fixes (1 4) and two general cleanups (2 3).
I
hope most of the issues would be resolved by these and we would
On Thursday, February 07, 2013 06:52:20 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 7 February 2013 18:35, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote:
I think they all make sense, so applied to linux-next.
I would prefer not to make any more changes to cpufreq before v3.9 from now
on,
except for fixes and
On Thursday, February 07, 2013 03:57:42 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
Hi Rafael,
This is another unplanned patchset for all the platforms that i broke. :)
Okay, there are two important fixes (1 4) and two general cleanups (2 3).
I
hope most of the issues would be resolved by these and we
On Friday, February 08, 2013 12:33:14 AM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Thursday, February 07, 2013 03:57:42 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
Hi Rafael,
This is another unplanned patchset for all the platforms that i broke. :)
Okay, there are two important fixes (1 4) and two general cleanups (2
On 8 February 2013 04:37, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote:
On Thursday, February 07, 2013 06:52:20 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 7 February 2013 18:35, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote:
I think they all make sense, so applied to linux-next.
I would prefer not to make any more changes
On 8 February 2013 05:03, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote:
I should have done that before, sorry about it.
Can you please rework this series on top of linux-pm.git/pm-cpufreq and
try to avoid introducing new issues this time?
Even i want to do that, but when i fetch your repo i don't see
On 8 February 2013 01:09, Artem Savkov artem.sav...@gmail.com wrote:
Tested out linux-pm.git/linux-next with this patches pulled. It seems
that my systemd-sleep issue is fixed, however there is a new 'sleeping
in invalid context' bug during boot:
[ 12.736484] BUG: sleeping function called
On 8 February 2013 04:37, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote:
BTW, there still are locking problems in linux-next. Why do we need
to take cpufreq_driver_lock() around driver-init() in cpufreq_add_dev(),
in particular?
I thought a bit more and realized there is no such limitation on
On 8 February 2013 05:03, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote:
I should have done that before, sorry about it.
np
Can you please rework this series on top of linux-pm.git/pm-cpufreq and
try to avoid introducing new issues this time?
Sorry for this. I didn't got any such issues on my system
On Fri, Feb 08, 2013 at 10:39:13AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 8 February 2013 04:37, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote:
BTW, there still are locking problems in linux-next. Why do we need
to take cpufreq_driver_lock() around driver-init() in cpufreq_add_dev(),
in particular?
I
Hi Rafael,
This is another unplanned patchset for all the platforms that i broke. :)
Okay, there are two important fixes (1 4) and two general cleanups (2 3). I
hope most of the issues would be resolved by these and we would be able to push
clean cpufreq core into 3.9.
I have pushed them in
On Thursday, February 07, 2013 03:57:42 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
Hi Rafael,
This is another unplanned patchset for all the platforms that i broke. :)
Okay, there are two important fixes (1 4) and two general cleanups (2 3).
I
hope most of the issues would be resolved by these and we
On 7 February 2013 18:35, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote:
I think they all make sense, so applied to linux-next.
I would prefer not to make any more changes to cpufreq before v3.9 from now
on,
except for fixes and maybe the Drik's patchset that I kind of scheduled for
Dirk :)
42 matches
Mail list logo
