On Wed, 2012-09-12 at 16:11 -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote:
Paul Walmsley p...@pwsan.com writes:
[...]
It kind of looks to me like there are two or three separate sets within
the series. My feeling is that Kevin should take the first two, then I
should take the rest other than 6 and 7.
Paul Walmsley p...@pwsan.com writes:
[...]
It kind of looks to me like there are two or three separate sets within
the series. My feeling is that Kevin should take the first two, then I
should take the rest other than 6 and 7. Then once those are queued,
we can pull in 6 and 7. Does
On Thu, 2012-07-19 at 17:30 -0600, Paul Walmsley wrote:
Hi
On Thu, 19 Jul 2012, Tero Kristo wrote:
Subject: [PATCHv7 07/12] ARM: OMAP4: PM: put all domains to OSWR during
suspend
Currently OMAP4 suspend puts all power domains to CSWR. OSWR is a deeper
state that saves more power
Signed-off-by: Tero Kristo t-kri...@ti.com
---
arch/arm/mach-omap2/pm44xx.c |2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/pm44xx.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/pm44xx.c
index 1e845e8..eb3e073 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/pm44xx.c
+++
On Thu, 19 Jul 2012, Tero Kristo wrote:
Signed-off-by: Tero Kristo t-kri...@ti.com
This one needs at least some short description for the changelog. Maybe
just a brief explanation that OSWR saves more energy that CSWR, but has
higher resume latency, and since resume from system suspend is
higher resume latency, and since resume from system suspend is considered
to be a high-latency operation, OSWR is appropriate here.
Yea, I can add one. How about this:
Subject: [PATCHv7 07/12] ARM: OMAP4: PM: put all domains to OSWR during
suspend
Currently OMAP4 suspend puts all power domains
Hi
On Thu, 19 Jul 2012, Tero Kristo wrote:
Subject: [PATCHv7 07/12] ARM: OMAP4: PM: put all domains to OSWR during
suspend
Currently OMAP4 suspend puts all power domains to CSWR. OSWR is a deeper
state that saves more power, but has higher latencies also. As suspend
is considered a high
