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.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] ? > Looks OK to me, I will apply with Amit's ack. > The patches [3-4/5] could be ignored. > Probably, you mean [4-5/5] :-) Thanks. - Kukjin -- 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
 |