[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0jD4gjJiCnUvSTPJPcp4aECGVZM0FzSbdFjXVsf4F7J8g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 11:04:37 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Lists linaro-kernel <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>,
Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Steve Muckle <smuckle.linux@...il.com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>,
Morten Rasmussen <Morten.Rasmussen@....com>,
Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com>,
eas-dev@...ts.linaro.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/9] cpufreq: schedutil: Allow remote wakeups
On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 4:09 AM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org> wrote:
> On 15-03-17, 12:45, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> From the first quick look patches [1-3/9] seem to be split out somewhat
>> artificially.
>>
>> Any chance to fold them into the patches where the new stuff is actually used?
>>
>> I'll be looking at the rest of the patchset shortly.
>
> I thought it would be better to keep them separate, but I can merge them to
> others in the next version if you want.
Yes, it is kind of more convenient to see how they are used right away.
Otherwise I need to look at two patches at the same time which is a
pain on some machine form factors. :-)
Thanks,
Rafael
Powered by blists - more mailing lists