Message ID | 20170825143206.30467-1-dietmar.eggemann@arm.com |
---|---|
Headers | show |
Series | arm, arm64, cpufreq: frequency- and cpu-invariant accounting support for task scheduler | expand |
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? Thanks, -- Dietmar [...]