On 2016年09月02日 22:21, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 09:50:07AM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 09:17:04AM +0800, qiaozhou wrote:
> I don't know whether it's meaningful to still check pending work here, or
> it's not suggested to use
On 2016年09月02日 22:21, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 09:50:07AM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 09:17:04AM +0800, qiaozhou wrote:
> I don't know whether it's meaningful to still check pending work here, or
> it's not suggested to use
On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 08:41:39AM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 04, 2016 at 03:29:39AM +0200, Andreas Mohr wrote:
> > Reason: any other [early-boot] invoker of cancel_delayed_work_sync()
> > would hit the same issue,
> > without any fix then available locally each.
> >
> > This may or
On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 08:41:39AM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 04, 2016 at 03:29:39AM +0200, Andreas Mohr wrote:
> > Reason: any other [early-boot] invoker of cancel_delayed_work_sync()
> > would hit the same issue,
> > without any fix then available locally each.
> >
> > This may or
On Sun, Sep 04, 2016 at 03:29:39AM +0200, Andreas Mohr wrote:
> Reason: any other [early-boot] invoker of cancel_delayed_work_sync()
> would hit the same issue,
> without any fix then available locally each.
>
> This may or may not be intentional.
> Just wanted to point it out.
idk, invoking a
On Sun, Sep 04, 2016 at 03:29:39AM +0200, Andreas Mohr wrote:
> Reason: any other [early-boot] invoker of cancel_delayed_work_sync()
> would hit the same issue,
> without any fix then available locally each.
>
> This may or may not be intentional.
> Just wanted to point it out.
idk, invoking a
On 2016年09月02日 22:21, Tejun Heo wrote:
On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 09:50:07AM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
Hello,
On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 09:17:04AM +0800, qiaozhou wrote:
I don't know whether it's meaningful to still check pending work here, or
it's not suggested to use pm_qos_update_request in this
On 2016年09月02日 22:21, Tejun Heo wrote:
On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 09:50:07AM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
Hello,
On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 09:17:04AM +0800, qiaozhou wrote:
I don't know whether it's meaningful to still check pending work here, or
it's not suggested to use pm_qos_update_request in this
Hi,
[no properly binding reference via In-Reply-To: available thus manually
re-creating, sorry]
https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/9/2/335
I came up with the following somewhat random thoughts:
*** this treatment is exclusive to a single use case, i.e.
not covering things consistently (API-wide)
>
Hi,
[no properly binding reference via In-Reply-To: available thus manually
re-creating, sorry]
https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/9/2/335
I came up with the following somewhat random thoughts:
*** this treatment is exclusive to a single use case, i.e.
not covering things consistently (API-wide)
>
On 2016年09月02日 22:21, Tejun Heo wrote:
On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 09:50:07AM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
Hello,
On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 09:17:04AM +0800, qiaozhou wrote:
I don't know whether it's meaningful to still check pending work here, or
it's not suggested to use pm_qos_update_request in
On 2016年09月02日 22:21, Tejun Heo wrote:
On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 09:50:07AM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
Hello,
On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 09:17:04AM +0800, qiaozhou wrote:
I don't know whether it's meaningful to still check pending work here, or
it's not suggested to use pm_qos_update_request in
On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 09:50:07AM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 09:17:04AM +0800, qiaozhou wrote:
> > > > I don't know whether it's meaningful to still check pending work here,
> > > > or
> > > > it's not suggested to use pm_qos_update_request in this early boot
On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 09:50:07AM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 09:17:04AM +0800, qiaozhou wrote:
> > > > I don't know whether it's meaningful to still check pending work here,
> > > > or
> > > > it's not suggested to use pm_qos_update_request in this early boot
Hello,
On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 09:17:04AM +0800, qiaozhou wrote:
> > > I don't know whether it's meaningful to still check pending work here, or
> > > it's not suggested to use pm_qos_update_request in this early boot up
> > > phase.
> > > Could you help to share some opinions? (I can fix this
Hello,
On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 09:17:04AM +0800, qiaozhou wrote:
> > > I don't know whether it's meaningful to still check pending work here, or
> > > it's not suggested to use pm_qos_update_request in this early boot up
> > > phase.
> > > Could you help to share some opinions? (I can fix this
On 2016年09月02日 02:45, Tejun Heo wrote:
Hello,
On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 05:09:36PM +0800, qiaozhou wrote:
In our system, we do cpu clock init in of_clk_init path, and use pm qos to
maintain cpu/cci clock. Firstly we init a CCI_CLK_QOS and set a default
value, then update CCI_CLK_QOS to limit
On 2016年09月02日 02:45, Tejun Heo wrote:
Hello,
On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 05:09:36PM +0800, qiaozhou wrote:
In our system, we do cpu clock init in of_clk_init path, and use pm qos to
maintain cpu/cci clock. Firstly we init a CCI_CLK_QOS and set a default
value, then update CCI_CLK_QOS to limit
Hello,
On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 05:09:36PM +0800, qiaozhou wrote:
> In our system, we do cpu clock init in of_clk_init path, and use pm qos to
> maintain cpu/cci clock. Firstly we init a CCI_CLK_QOS and set a default
> value, then update CCI_CLK_QOS to limit CCI min frequency according to
>
Hello,
On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 05:09:36PM +0800, qiaozhou wrote:
> In our system, we do cpu clock init in of_clk_init path, and use pm qos to
> maintain cpu/cci clock. Firstly we init a CCI_CLK_QOS and set a default
> value, then update CCI_CLK_QOS to limit CCI min frequency according to
>
Hi Tejun,
I have a question related with below patch, and need your suggestion.
In our system, we do cpu clock init in of_clk_init path, and use pm qos
to maintain cpu/cci clock. Firstly we init a CCI_CLK_QOS and set a
default value, then update CCI_CLK_QOS to limit CCI min frequency
Hi Tejun,
I have a question related with below patch, and need your suggestion.
In our system, we do cpu clock init in of_clk_init path, and use pm qos
to maintain cpu/cci clock. Firstly we init a CCI_CLK_QOS and set a
default value, then update CCI_CLK_QOS to limit CCI min frequency
22 matches
Mail list logo