On 11/15/2013 04:27 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 14 November 2013 22:34, Nishanth Menon wrote:
>> I think it is still too early to do so :(
>
> :)
:D
>
>> equivalent patch: http://pastebin.mozilla.org/3603467 (with minor
>> changes for build)
>>
>> Basic tests:
On 14 November 2013 22:34, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> I think it is still too early to do so :(
:)
> equivalent patch: http://pastebin.mozilla.org/3603467 (with minor
> changes for build)
>
> Basic tests: http://pastebin.mozilla.org/3603456 (governor is
> functional, but governor kicks in early
On 14 November 2013 22:34, Nishanth Menon n...@ti.com wrote:
I think it is still too early to do so :(
:)
equivalent patch: http://pastebin.mozilla.org/3603467 (with minor
changes for build)
Basic tests: http://pastebin.mozilla.org/3603456 (governor is
functional, but governor kicks in
On 11/15/2013 04:27 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 14 November 2013 22:34, Nishanth Menon n...@ti.com wrote:
I think it is still too early to do so :(
:)
:D
equivalent patch: http://pastebin.mozilla.org/3603467 (with minor
changes for build)
Basic tests: http://pastebin.mozilla.org/3603456
On Friday 15 November 2013 03:30 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> I'm not going to apply anything like this. If I have already, that's been a
> mistake.
>
> Do not mix assignments with logical operators in such outrageous ways, please.
> That's completely unreadable and confusing.
Okay... Will
On Thursday, November 14, 2013 06:55:05 AM viresh kumar wrote:
> On Wednesday 13 November 2013 08:46 PM, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> > arrgh, my bad.. Apologies for the bad one.. I missed it :( Does the
> > following
> > look equivalent?
>
> yes.
>
> > With this, I now see:
>
> > [ 43.212714]
On 11/14/2013 10:46 AM, viresh kumar wrote:
> On Thursday 14 November 2013 07:57 PM, Nishanth Menon wrote:
>> I am guessing this is a little too early for restarting policy here
>> considering syscore_ops->resume is pretty early..
>
> Yeah, looks like that..
>
>>
On Thursday 14 November 2013 07:57 PM, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> I am guessing this is a little too early for restarting policy here
> considering syscore_ops->resume is pretty early..
Yeah, looks like that..
> http://pastebin.mozilla.org/3602746 is the equivalent patch for v3.12
>
On 11/13/2013 07:25 PM, viresh kumar wrote:
> On Wednesday 13 November 2013 08:46 PM, Nishanth Menon wrote:
>> arrgh, my bad.. Apologies for the bad one.. I missed it :( Does the following
>> look equivalent?
>
> yes.
>
>> With this, I now see:
>
>> [ 43.212714] cpufreq:
On 11/13/2013 07:25 PM, viresh kumar wrote:
On Wednesday 13 November 2013 08:46 PM, Nishanth Menon wrote:
arrgh, my bad.. Apologies for the bad one.. I missed it :( Does the following
look equivalent?
yes.
With this, I now see:
[ 43.212714] cpufreq: cpufreq_add_policy_cpu: Failed to
On Thursday 14 November 2013 07:57 PM, Nishanth Menon wrote:
I am guessing this is a little too early for restarting policy here
considering syscore_ops-resume is pretty early..
Yeah, looks like that..
http://pastebin.mozilla.org/3602746 is the equivalent patch for v3.12
On 11/14/2013 10:46 AM, viresh kumar wrote:
On Thursday 14 November 2013 07:57 PM, Nishanth Menon wrote:
I am guessing this is a little too early for restarting policy here
considering syscore_ops-resume is pretty early..
Yeah, looks like that..
http://pastebin.mozilla.org/3602746 is the
On Thursday, November 14, 2013 06:55:05 AM viresh kumar wrote:
On Wednesday 13 November 2013 08:46 PM, Nishanth Menon wrote:
arrgh, my bad.. Apologies for the bad one.. I missed it :( Does the
following
look equivalent?
yes.
With this, I now see:
[ 43.212714] cpufreq:
On Friday 15 November 2013 03:30 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
I'm not going to apply anything like this. If I have already, that's been a
mistake.
Do not mix assignments with logical operators in such outrageous ways, please.
That's completely unreadable and confusing.
Okay... Will get it
On Wednesday 13 November 2013 08:46 PM, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> arrgh, my bad.. Apologies for the bad one.. I missed it :( Does the following
> look equivalent?
yes.
> With this, I now see:
> [ 43.212714] cpufreq: cpufreq_add_policy_cpu: Failed to stop governor
> ^^^ ??
Ahh, I missed this
On 11:19-20131113, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 12 November 2013 20:41, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> > On 11/12/2013 12:03 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
[...]
> >> Can you try attached patch? I will then repost it formally...
> >
> > I tried a equivalent of this for v3.12 tag:
[..]
> > @@ -1252,7 +1252,7 @@
On 11:19-20131113, Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 12 November 2013 20:41, Nishanth Menon n...@ti.com wrote:
On 11/12/2013 12:03 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
[...]
Can you try attached patch? I will then repost it formally...
I tried a equivalent of this for v3.12 tag:
[..]
@@ -1252,7 +1252,7 @@
On Wednesday 13 November 2013 08:46 PM, Nishanth Menon wrote:
arrgh, my bad.. Apologies for the bad one.. I missed it :( Does the following
look equivalent?
yes.
With this, I now see:
[ 43.212714] cpufreq: cpufreq_add_policy_cpu: Failed to stop governor
^^^ ??
Ahh, I missed this part. I
On 12 November 2013 20:41, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> On 11/12/2013 12:03 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> Yes the problem looks real but there are issues with this patch.
>> - It doesn't solve your problem completely, because you returned -EBUSY,
>> your suspend operation failed and we resumed
On 11/12/2013 12:03 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> Cc'ing Shawn as well.
>
> Sorry for being really late.. I just forgot about it :(
Thanks for responding :)
>
> On 24 October 2013 23:38, Nishanth Menon wrote:
>> For platforms where regulators are used, regulator access tends to be
>> disabled as
On 11/12/2013 12:03 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
Cc'ing Shawn as well.
Sorry for being really late.. I just forgot about it :(
Thanks for responding :)
On 24 October 2013 23:38, Nishanth Menon n...@ti.com wrote:
For platforms where regulators are used, regulator access tends to be
disabled
On 12 November 2013 20:41, Nishanth Menon n...@ti.com wrote:
On 11/12/2013 12:03 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
Yes the problem looks real but there are issues with this patch.
- It doesn't solve your problem completely, because you returned -EBUSY,
your suspend operation failed and we resumed
Cc'ing Shawn as well.
Sorry for being really late.. I just forgot about it :(
On 24 October 2013 23:38, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> For platforms where regulators are used, regulator access tends to be
> disabled as part of the suspend path. In SMP systems such as OMAP,
> CPU1 is disabled as post
Cc'ing Shawn as well.
Sorry for being really late.. I just forgot about it :(
On 24 October 2013 23:38, Nishanth Menon n...@ti.com wrote:
For platforms where regulators are used, regulator access tends to be
disabled as part of the suspend path. In SMP systems such as OMAP,
CPU1 is disabled
For platforms where regulators are used, regulator access tends to be
disabled as part of the suspend path. In SMP systems such as OMAP,
CPU1 is disabled as post suspend_noirq. This results in the following
tail end sequence of actions:
cpufreq_cpu_callback gets called with CPU_POST_DEAD
For platforms where regulators are used, regulator access tends to be
disabled as part of the suspend path. In SMP systems such as OMAP,
CPU1 is disabled as post suspend_noirq. This results in the following
tail end sequence of actions:
cpufreq_cpu_callback gets called with CPU_POST_DEAD
26 matches
Mail list logo
