On 01/18/2013 04:51 AM, Kukjin Kim wrote:
Daniel Lezcano wrote:
On 01/10/2013 11:33 PM, amit daniel kachhap wrote:
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Daniel Lezcano daniel.lezc...@free.fr
wrote:
On 01/10/2013 09:07 PM, amit daniel kachhap wrote:
Hi Daniel,
Hi Amit Daniel,
This hotplug
Daniel Lezcano wrote:
On 01/10/2013 11:33 PM, amit daniel kachhap wrote:
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Daniel Lezcano daniel.lezc...@free.fr
wrote:
On 01/10/2013 09:07 PM, amit daniel kachhap wrote:
Hi Daniel,
Hi Amit Daniel,
This hotplug noifiers looks fine. I suppose it
On 01/10/2013 11:33 PM, amit daniel kachhap wrote:
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Daniel Lezcano daniel.lezc...@free.fr
wrote:
On 01/10/2013 09:07 PM, amit daniel kachhap wrote:
Hi Daniel,
Hi Amit Daniel,
This hotplug noifiers looks fine. I suppose it should add extra state
C1 in cpu0.
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Daniel Lezcano daniel.lezc...@free.fr wrote:
On 01/10/2013 09:07 PM, amit daniel kachhap wrote:
Hi Daniel,
Hi Amit Daniel,
This hotplug noifiers looks fine. I suppose it should add extra state
C1 in cpu0. If it is done like below than for normal cases(when
What we have now is (1) cpu0 going always to WFI when cpu1 is up,
(2) cpu0 going to all states when cpu1 is down.
In other words, cpuidle is disabled when cpu1 is up and enabled
when cpu1 is down.
This patch use the cpu hotplug notifier to enable/disable cpuidle,
when the cpu1 is plugged or
