On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 11:00:11AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 30-05-16, 08:31, Steve Muckle wrote:
> > My goal here was to have the system operate in this case in a manner
> > that is obviously not optimized (running at fmax), so the platform owner
> > realizes that the cpufreq driver doesn't
On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 11:00:11AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 30-05-16, 08:31, Steve Muckle wrote:
> > My goal here was to have the system operate in this case in a manner
> > that is obviously not optimized (running at fmax), so the platform owner
> > realizes that the cpufreq driver doesn't
On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 04:44:51PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 25-05-16, 19:52, Steve Muckle wrote:
> > +unsigned int cpufreq_driver_resolve_freq(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
> > +unsigned int target_freq)
> > +{
> > + struct cpufreq_frequency_table
On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 04:44:51PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 25-05-16, 19:52, Steve Muckle wrote:
> > +unsigned int cpufreq_driver_resolve_freq(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
> > +unsigned int target_freq)
> > +{
> > + struct cpufreq_frequency_table
On 25-05-16, 19:52, Steve Muckle wrote:
> +unsigned int cpufreq_driver_resolve_freq(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
> + unsigned int target_freq)
> +{
> + struct cpufreq_frequency_table *freq_table;
> + int index, retval;
> +
> +
On 25-05-16, 19:52, Steve Muckle wrote:
> +unsigned int cpufreq_driver_resolve_freq(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
> + unsigned int target_freq)
> +{
> + struct cpufreq_frequency_table *freq_table;
> + int index, retval;
> +
> +
On 30-05-16, 08:31, Steve Muckle wrote:
> My goal here was to have the system operate in this case in a manner
> that is obviously not optimized (running at fmax), so the platform owner
> realizes that the cpufreq driver doesn't fully support the schedutil
> governor.
>
> I was originally going
On 30-05-16, 08:31, Steve Muckle wrote:
> My goal here was to have the system operate in this case in a manner
> that is obviously not optimized (running at fmax), so the platform owner
> realizes that the cpufreq driver doesn't fully support the schedutil
> governor.
>
> I was originally going
On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 11:55:14AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 25-05-16, 19:52, Steve Muckle wrote:
> > Cpufreq governors may need to know what a particular target frequency
> > maps to in the driver without necessarily wanting to set the frequency.
> > Support this operation via a new cpufreq
On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 11:55:14AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 25-05-16, 19:52, Steve Muckle wrote:
> > Cpufreq governors may need to know what a particular target frequency
> > maps to in the driver without necessarily wanting to set the frequency.
> > Support this operation via a new cpufreq
On 25-05-16, 19:52, Steve Muckle wrote:
> Cpufreq governors may need to know what a particular target frequency
> maps to in the driver without necessarily wanting to set the frequency.
> Support this operation via a new cpufreq API,
> cpufreq_driver_resolve_freq().
>
> The above API will call a
On 25-05-16, 19:52, Steve Muckle wrote:
> Cpufreq governors may need to know what a particular target frequency
> maps to in the driver without necessarily wanting to set the frequency.
> Support this operation via a new cpufreq API,
> cpufreq_driver_resolve_freq().
>
> The above API will call a
Cpufreq governors may need to know what a particular target frequency
maps to in the driver without necessarily wanting to set the frequency.
Support this operation via a new cpufreq API,
cpufreq_driver_resolve_freq().
The above API will call a new cpufreq driver callback, resolve_freq(),
if it
Cpufreq governors may need to know what a particular target frequency
maps to in the driver without necessarily wanting to set the frequency.
Support this operation via a new cpufreq API,
cpufreq_driver_resolve_freq().
The above API will call a new cpufreq driver callback, resolve_freq(),
if it
14 matches
Mail list logo
