Colin Cross writes:
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 5:28 PM, Colin Cross wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 4:52 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote:
[...]
>>>
>>> Checking the ready_count seemed like an easy way to do this, but did you
>>> have any other mechanisms in mind for CPUs to communicate that they've
>
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 10:07 AM, Lorenzo Pieralisi
wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 05:30:15PM +, Colin Cross wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 6:59 AM, Lorenzo Pieralisi
>> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 12:13:26PM +, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> >
>> > [...]
>> >
>> >> >> In your patch
On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 05:30:15PM +, Colin Cross wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 6:59 AM, Lorenzo Pieralisi
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 12:13:26PM +, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >> >> In your patch, you put in safe state (WFI for most of platform) the
> >> >> cpus
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 6:59 AM, Lorenzo Pieralisi
wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 12:13:26PM +, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> >> In your patch, you put in safe state (WFI for most of platform) the
>> >> cpus that become idle and these cpus are woken up each time a new cpu
>> >> of the
On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 12:13:26PM +, Vincent Guittot wrote:
[...]
> >> In your patch, you put in safe state (WFI for most of platform) the
> >> cpus that become idle and these cpus are woken up each time a new cpu
> >> of the cluster becomes idle. Then, the cluster state is chosen and the
>
Hi Colin,
Sorry for this late reply
On 27 January 2012 18:32, Colin Cross wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 12:54 AM, Vincent Guittot
> wrote:
>> On 20 January 2012 21:40, Colin Cross wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 12:46 AM, Daniel Lezcano
>>> wrote:
Hi Colin,
this patchset
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 12:54 AM, Vincent Guittot
wrote:
> On 20 January 2012 21:40, Colin Cross wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 12:46 AM, Daniel Lezcano
>> wrote:
>>> Hi Colin,
>>>
>>> this patchset could be interesting to resolve in a generic way the cpu
>>> dependencies.
>>> What is the sta
On 20 January 2012 21:40, Colin Cross wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 12:46 AM, Daniel Lezcano
> wrote:
>> Hi Colin,
>>
>> this patchset could be interesting to resolve in a generic way the cpu
>> dependencies.
>> What is the status of this patchset ?
>
> I can't do much with it right now, becau
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 12:53 AM, Arjan van de Ven
wrote:
> On 12/22/2011 9:35 AM, Shilimkar, Santosh wrote:
>
>> Indeed. The SOCs, Arch's which does support low power
>> state independently and doesn't need any co-ordination between CPU's
>> will continue to work same way as before with this seri
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 2:23 PM, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On 12/22/2011 9:35 AM, Shilimkar, Santosh wrote:
>
>> Indeed. The SOCs, Arch's which does support low power
>> state independently and doesn't need any co-ordination between CPU's
>> will continue to work same way as before with this serie
On 12/22/2011 9:35 AM, Shilimkar, Santosh wrote:
> Indeed. The SOCs, Arch's which does support low power
> state independently and doesn't need any co-ordination between CPU's
> will continue to work same way as before with this series.
btw I think you misunderstand; I don't object to a need for
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 1:12 AM, Colin Cross wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 11:36 AM, Arjan van de Ven
> wrote:
.. or it enters WFI, and a physical device sends it an interrupt,
at which point it exits.
>>>
>>> None of the cpus will return to the idle loop until all cpus have
>>>
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 11:36 AM, Arjan van de Ven
wrote:
>>>
>>> .. or it enters WFI, and a physical device sends it an interrupt,
>>> at which point it exits.
>>
>> None of the cpus will return to the idle loop until all cpus have
>> decremented the ready counter back to 0, so they can't wrap ar
13 matches
Mail list logo
