On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 12:13 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
>
> On 27-01-21, 22:40, Hsin-Yi Wang wrote:
> > Hi Viresh,
> >
> > I tested this patch with devfreq passive governor[1] and mt8183
> > cci[2]. It's also working as expected.
>
> I hope I can add your Tested-by for the patch then, right ?
>
Yes,
On 27-01-21, 22:40, Hsin-Yi Wang wrote:
> Hi Viresh,
>
> I tested this patch with devfreq passive governor[1] and mt8183
> cci[2]. It's also working as expected.
I hope I can add your Tested-by for the patch then, right ?
> [1]
>
On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 7:54 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
>
> On 18-01-21, 15:39, Hsin-Yi Wang wrote:
> > Thanks. I can test this with the mt8183-cci series.
>
> Can you please give this a try ?
>
> Apply over:
>
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/vireshk/pm.git opp/linux-next
>
Hi
On 18-01-21, 15:39, Hsin-Yi Wang wrote:
> Thanks. I can test this with the mt8183-cci series.
Can you please give this a try ?
Apply over:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/vireshk/pm.git opp/linux-next
-8<-
Subject: [PATCH] opp:
On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 11:40 PM Hsin-Yi Wang wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 3:34 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> >
> > On 18-01-21, 15:21, Hsin-Yi Wang wrote:
> > > Do you still have plans to push this? I've tested on mt8183 cci with:
> >
> > I was never able to get Saravana to test this, if you
On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 3:34 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
>
> On 18-01-21, 15:21, Hsin-Yi Wang wrote:
> > Do you still have plans to push this? I've tested on mt8183 cci with:
>
> I was never able to get Saravana to test this, if you are interested
> in this stuff then I can rebase this and resend and
On 18-01-21, 15:21, Hsin-Yi Wang wrote:
> Do you still have plans to push this? I've tested on mt8183 cci with:
I was never able to get Saravana to test this, if you are interested
in this stuff then I can rebase this and resend and we can see if it
works.
--
viresh
On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 12:21 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
>
> On 29-01-20, 19:04, Sibi Sankar wrote:
> > I don't have a gen-pd use case to test against but with the is_genpd
> > check removed it works as expected when I used it against this
> > series: https://patchwork.kernel.org/cover/11353185/
> >
On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 4:03 PM Hsin-Yi Wang wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 10:23 PM Saravana Kannan wrote:
>
> > -free_required_tables:
> > - _opp_table_free_required_tables(opp_table);
> > -put_np:
> > - of_node_put(np);
> > + for (i = 0; i < src->required_opp_count; i++)
On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 10:23 PM Saravana Kannan wrote:
> -free_required_tables:
> - _opp_table_free_required_tables(opp_table);
> -put_np:
> - of_node_put(np);
> + for (i = 0; i < src->required_opp_count; i++) {
> + if (src->required_opp_tables[i])
> +
On 26-07-19, 14:23, Saravana Kannan wrote:
> I was taking a closer look at the OPP framework code to try and do
> what you ask above, but it's kind of a mess. The whole "the same OPP
> table can be used by multiple devices without the opp-shared flag set"
> is effectively breaking "required-opps"
On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 6:52 PM Saravana Kannan wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 10:17 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> >
> > On 24-07-19, 21:09, Saravana Kannan wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 8:07 PM Viresh Kumar
> > > wrote:
> > > > We should be doing this whenever a new OPP table is
On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 10:17 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
>
> On 24-07-19, 21:09, Saravana Kannan wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 8:07 PM Viresh Kumar
> > wrote:
> > > We should be doing this whenever a new OPP table is created, and see
> > > if someone else was waiting for this OPP table to come
On 24-07-19, 21:09, Saravana Kannan wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 8:07 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > We should be doing this whenever a new OPP table is created, and see
> > if someone else was waiting for this OPP table to come alive.
>
> Searching the global OPP table list seems a ton more
On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 8:07 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
>
> On 23-07-19, 07:47, Saravana Kannan wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 23, 2019, 3:28 AM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> >
> > > $subject doesn't have correct property name.
> > >
> > > On 17-07-19, 15:23, Saravana Kannan wrote:
> > > > Currently, the linking of
On 23-07-19, 07:47, Saravana Kannan wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2019, 3:28 AM Viresh Kumar wrote:
>
> > $subject doesn't have correct property name.
> >
> > On 17-07-19, 15:23, Saravana Kannan wrote:
> > > Currently, the linking of required-opps fails silently if the
> > > destination OPP table
Resending again due to accidental HTML (minor rewording/typo fixes too).
On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 3:28 AM Viresh Kumar wrote:
>
> $subject doesn't have correct property name.
>
> On 17-07-19, 15:23, Saravana Kannan wrote:
> > Currently, the linking of required-opps fails silently if the
> >
$subject doesn't have correct property name.
On 17-07-19, 15:23, Saravana Kannan wrote:
> Currently, the linking of required-opps fails silently if the
> destination OPP table hasn't been added before the source OPP table is
> added. This puts an unnecessary requirement that the destination table
Currently, the linking of required-opps fails silently if the
destination OPP table hasn't been added before the source OPP table is
added. This puts an unnecessary requirement that the destination table
be added before the source table is added.
In reality, the destination table is needed only
19 matches
Mail list logo
