From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Lezcano Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] coupled cpuidle state support Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 15:13:04 +0100 Message-ID: <4F27F6F0.7010508@free.fr> References: <1324426147-16735-1-git-send-email-ccross@android.com> <4F1929E9.7070707@linaro.org> <4F200BE2.2070301@free.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4F200BE2.2070301@free.fr> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Colin Cross Cc: Daniel Lezcano , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org, Len Brown , Kevin Hilman , Santosh Shilimkar , Amit Kucheria , Arjan van de Ven , Trinabh Gupta , Deepthi Dharwar , linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org On 01/25/2012 03:04 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > On 01/20/2012 09:40 PM, Colin Cross wrote: >> On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 12:46 AM, Daniel Lezcano >> wrote: >>> Hi Colin, >>> >>> this patchset could be interesting to resolve in a generic way the cpu >>> dependencies. >>> What is the status of this patchset ? >> I can't do much with it right now, because I don't have any devices >> that can do SMP idle with a v3.2 kernel. I've started working on an >> updated version that avoids the spinlock, but it might be a while >> before I can test and post it. I'm mostly looking for feedback on the >> approach taken in this patch, and whether it will be useful for other >> SoCs besides Tegra and OMAP4. > > Hi Colin, > > I will be happy to test your patchset. Do you have a pointer to a more > recent kernel ? Hi Colin, sorry for bothering you. I am working on a cpuidle driver for an ARM SMP board, I will be really happy to test your patchset and look how it fits with the cpuidle driver. Thanks -- Daniel From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: daniel.lezcano@free.fr (Daniel Lezcano) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 15:13:04 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 0/3] coupled cpuidle state support In-Reply-To: <4F200BE2.2070301@free.fr> References: <1324426147-16735-1-git-send-email-ccross@android.com> <4F1929E9.7070707@linaro.org> <4F200BE2.2070301@free.fr> Message-ID: <4F27F6F0.7010508@free.fr> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 01/25/2012 03:04 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > On 01/20/2012 09:40 PM, Colin Cross wrote: >> On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 12:46 AM, Daniel Lezcano >> wrote: >>> Hi Colin, >>> >>> this patchset could be interesting to resolve in a generic way the cpu >>> dependencies. >>> What is the status of this patchset ? >> I can't do much with it right now, because I don't have any devices >> that can do SMP idle with a v3.2 kernel. I've started working on an >> updated version that avoids the spinlock, but it might be a while >> before I can test and post it. I'm mostly looking for feedback on the >> approach taken in this patch, and whether it will be useful for other >> SoCs besides Tegra and OMAP4. > > Hi Colin, > > I will be happy to test your patchset. Do you have a pointer to a more > recent kernel ? Hi Colin, sorry for bothering you. I am working on a cpuidle driver for an ARM SMP board, I will be really happy to test your patchset and look how it fits with the cpuidle driver. Thanks -- Daniel