On 09/07/2015 11:44 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, September 07, 2015 10:55:43 AM Daniel Wagner wrote:
>> On 09/05/2015 04:11 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> On Friday, September 04, 2015 03:34:55 PM Daniel Wagner wrote:
Instead encode the FREEZE state via the CPU state we allow th
On Monday, September 07, 2015 10:55:43 AM Daniel Wagner wrote:
> On 09/05/2015 04:11 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Friday, September 04, 2015 03:34:55 PM Daniel Wagner wrote:
> >> Instead encode the FREEZE state via the CPU state we allow the
> >> interesting subsystems (MCE, microcode) to qu
On Monday, September 07, 2015 10:55:43 AM Daniel Wagner wrote:
> On 09/05/2015 04:11 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Friday, September 04, 2015 03:34:55 PM Daniel Wagner wrote:
> >> Instead encode the FREEZE state via the CPU state we allow the
> >> interesting subsystems (MCE, microcode) to qu
On 09/05/2015 04:11 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Friday, September 04, 2015 03:34:55 PM Daniel Wagner wrote:
>> Instead encode the FREEZE state via the CPU state we allow the
>> interesting subsystems (MCE, microcode) to query the power
>> subsystem directly.
>
> A use case, please.
The moti
On Friday, September 04, 2015 03:34:55 PM Daniel Wagner wrote:
> Instead encode the FREEZE state via the CPU state we allow the
> interesting subsystems (MCE, microcode) to query the power
> subsystem directly.
A use case, please.
> Most notifiers are not interested at all
> in this information s
Instead encode the FREEZE state via the CPU state we allow the
interesting subsystems (MCE, microcode) to query the power
subsystem directly. Most notifiers are not interested at all
in this information so rather have explicit calls to freeze_active()
instead adding complexity to the rest of the us
6 matches
Mail list logo