Re: [PATCH v4 00/10] arm, arm64, cpufreq: frequency- and cpu-invariant accounting support for task scheduler
From: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
Date: 2017-09-07 12:04:34
Also in:
lkml
Hi Rafael, On 31/08/17 12:27, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
Hi Raphael, On 31/08/17 00:34, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:quoted
On Friday, August 25, 2017 4:31:56 PM CEST Dietmar Eggemann wrote:[...]quoted
quoted
[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