Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@xxxxxx> writes: > On Friday 30 March 2012 06:23 PM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote: >> Colin, >> >> On Friday 16 March 2012 05:07 AM, Colin Cross wrote: >>> On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Colin Cross <ccross@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> [...] >> >>>> >>>> v2: >>>> * removed the coupled lock, replacing it with atomic counters >>>> * added a check for outstanding pokes before beginning the >>>> final transition to avoid extra wakeups >>>> * made the cpuidle_coupled struct completely private >>>> * fixed kerneldoc comment formatting >>>> * added a patch with a helper function for resynchronizing >>>> cpus after aborting idle >>>> * added a patch (not for merging) to add trace events for >>>> verification and performance testing >>> >>> I forgot to mention, this patch series is on v3.3-rc7, and will >>> conflict with the cpuidle timekeeping patches. If those go in first >>> (which is likely), I will rework this series on top of it. I left it >>> on v3.3-rc7 now to make testing easier. >> >> I have re-based your series against Len Browns >> next branch [1] which has time keeping and other cpuidle patches. >> Have also folded the CPU hotplug fix which I posted in the >> original coupled idle patch. >> > As you know, we have been playing around this series for OMAP > for last few weeks. This version series seems to work as intended > and found it pretty stable in my testing. Apart from the cpu > hotplug fix and the trace event comment, series looks fine > to me. > > FWIW, > Reviewed-by: Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@xxxxxx> > Tested-by: Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@xxxxxx> Also Reviewed-by: Kevin Hilman <khilman@xxxxxx> Tested-by: Kevin Hilman <khilman@xxxxxx> as I've been working with Santosh on getting this stabilized on OMAP and we are very keen to see this functionality merged. Thanks, Kevin _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
