lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Sep]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 00/10] arm, arm64, cpufreq: frequency- and cpu-invariant accounting support for task scheduler
From
Date
Hi Rafael,

On 31/08/17 12:27, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> Hi Raphael,
>
> On 31/08/17 00:34, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Friday, August 25, 2017 4:31:56 PM CEST Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>> [1] https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=149625018223002&w=2
>>> [2] https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=150118402232039&w=2
>>> [3] https://marc.info/?l=linux-pm&m=149933474313566&w=2
>>> [4] http://arminfo.emea.arm.com/help/topic/com.arm.doc.den0056a/DEN0056A_System_Control_and_Management_Interface.pdf
>>> [5] https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=149690865010019&w=2
>>>
>>> Dietmar Eggemann (10):
>>> drivers base/arch_topology: free cpumask cpus_to_visit
>>> cpufreq: provide default frequency-invariance setter function
>>> cpufreq: arm_big_little: invoke frequency-invariance setter function
>>> cpufreq: dt: invoke frequency-invariance setter function
>>> drivers base/arch_topology: provide frequency-invariant accounting
>>> support
>>> drivers base/arch_topology: allow inlining cpu-invariant accounting
>>> support
>>> arm: wire frequency-invariant accounting support up to the task
>>> scheduler
>>> arm: wire cpu-invariant accounting support up to the task scheduler
>>> arm64: wire frequency-invariant accounting support up to the task
>>> scheduler
>>> arm64: wire cpu-invariant accounting support up to the task scheduler
>>>
>>> arch/arm/include/asm/topology.h | 8 ++++++++
>>> arch/arm64/include/asm/topology.h | 8 ++++++++
>>> drivers/base/arch_topology.c | 29 +++++++++++++++++++++++------
>>> drivers/cpufreq/arm_big_little.c | 10 +++++++++-
>>> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-dt.c | 12 ++++++++++--
>>> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 6 ++++++
>>> include/linux/arch_topology.h | 18 +++++++++++++++++-
>>> include/linux/cpufreq.h | 3 +++
>>> 8 files changed, 84 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>>>
>>>
>>
>> FWIW, patches [2-4/10] in this series are fine by me, but I guess you
>> need to talk to Viresh about the [3-4/10] anyway.
>
> Thanks for the review! Viresh already gave me his 'Acked-by' for
> [3-4/10] during the v3 review.
>
> Since this patch-set touches different subsystems I wonder via which
> tree it should go upstream? Could it go via your linux-pm tree or should
> I ask Greg K-H?

Ping.

I don't expect any more review on this patch-set. It's only patch PATCH
v4 02/10] which has no Acked-By yet.

Thanks,

-- Dietmar

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-09-07 14:04    [W:0.045 / U:0.176 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site