[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <13207937.r2GEYrEf4f@kreacher>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2020 17:09:35 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
To: Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>
Cc: Linux Documentation <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
Giovanni Gherdovich <ggherdovich@...e.cz>,
Doug Smythies <dsmythies@...us.net>,
Francisco Jerez <francisco.jerez.plata@...el.com>
Subject: [PATCH v4 0/2] cpufreq: intel_pstate: Implement passive mode with HWP enabled
Hi All,
On Monday, July 27, 2020 5:13:40 PM CEST Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> On Thursday, July 16, 2020 7:37:04 PM CEST Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >
> > This really is a v2 of this patch:
> >
> > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11663271/
> >
> > with an extra preceding cleanup patch to avoid making unrelated changes in the
> > [2/2].
>
> Almost the same as before, but the first patch has been reworked to handle
> errors in store_energy_performance_preference() correctly and rebased on top
> of the current linux-pm.git branch.
>
> No functional changes otherwise.
One more update of the second patch.
Namely, I realized that the hwp_dynamic_boost sysfs switch was present in the
passive mode after the v3 (and the previous versions) of that patch which isn't
correct, so this modifies it to avoid exposing hwp_dynamic_boost in the passive
mode.
The first patch is the same as in the v2.
Thanks!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists