On 01/10/2013 11:33 PM, amit daniel kachhap wrote: > On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@xxxxxxx> 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 all >>> cpu's are online) there wont be any statistics for C0 state >> >> I guess you meant state 0 which is WFI, right ? >> C0 state is the intel semantic for cpu fully turned on. > Yes I meant C0 as wfi >> >>> also which >>> is required. Other patches look good. >> >> Ok, that makes sense to have statistics even if they are only doing WFI. >> >> Then the patch 4/5 is not ok, no ? > yes I suppose patch 4 and patch 5 are related and depends how you > frame patch 5. I think it is better to create C0/C1 sysfs and other > things in the beginning because it is a filesystem call and may > increase the cpu hotplug time which is not worth. May be if cpuidle > framework exposes some API to enable/disable states then it is better. > > For patch 1,2 and 3, > Acked-by: Amit Daniel Kachhap <amit.daniel@xxxxxxxxxxx> Hi Kukjin, is it possible to take these patches [1-3/5] ? The patches [3-4/5] could be ignored. Thanks -- Daniel -- <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook | <http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter | <http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
 |