[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201202062116.16744.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 21:16:16 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To: Jean Pihet <jean.pihet@...oldbits.com>
Cc: markgross@...gnar.org, Kevin Hilman <khilman@...com>,
Venkatesh Pallipadi <venki@...gle.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linux PM mailing list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
"Pihet-XID, Jean" <j-pihet@...com>
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH] CPU C-state breakage with PM Qos change
On Monday, February 06, 2012, Jean Pihet wrote:
> Rafael,
>
> On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Jean Pihet <jean.pihet@...oldbits.com> wrote:
> > Hi Rafael, Mark,
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl> wrote:
> ...
>
> >> In kernel/power/Makefile:
> >>
> >> obj-$(CONFIG_PM) += main.o qos.o
> >>
> >> I guess that explains things. :-)
> > Initially I thought we should have a way of disabling the feature on
> > some (minimal) kernels and so thought CONFIG_PM was the option to use.
> >
> >> It's quite easy to make qos.o be independent of CONFIG_PM, in which case the
> >> code added by Venki can be removed, so patches welcome (for 3.4, though).
> > I am working on it, more to come soon.
>
> I have a couple of patches ready, to be applied on 3.3-rc1 (so without
> Venki's patch applied).
> The first one is on PM QoS, the second one on per-device PM QoS. Is
> the latter needed?
I'm not sure without looking. :-)
Thanks,
Rafael
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists