On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 10:42:41AM +0530, viresh kumar wrote:
> On 11-05-18, 13:55, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> > On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 03:02:21PM +0530, viresh kumar wrote:
> > > On 10-05-18, 14:26, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> > > > +int idle_injection_start(struct idle_injection_device *ii_dev)
> > > >
On 11-05-18, 13:55, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 03:02:21PM +0530, viresh kumar wrote:
> > On 10-05-18, 14:26, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> > > +int idle_injection_start(struct idle_injection_device *ii_dev)
> > > +{
> > > + if (!atomic_read(&ii_dev->idle_duration_ms))
> > > +
On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 03:02:21PM +0530, viresh kumar wrote:
> On 10-05-18, 14:26, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> > Initially, the cpu_cooling device for ARM was changed by adding a new
> > policy inserting idle cycles. The intel_powerclamp driver does a
> > similar action.
> >
> > Instead of implementi
On 10-05-18, 14:26, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> Initially, the cpu_cooling device for ARM was changed by adding a new
> policy inserting idle cycles. The intel_powerclamp driver does a
> similar action.
>
> Instead of implementing idle injections privately in the cpu_cooling
> device, move the idle in
Initially, the cpu_cooling device for ARM was changed by adding a new
policy inserting idle cycles. The intel_powerclamp driver does a
similar action.
Instead of implementing idle injections privately in the cpu_cooling
device, move the idle injection code in a dedicated framework and give
the opp
5 matches
Mail list logo