From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Antti P Miettinen Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/8] RFC: CPU frequency min/max as PM QoS params Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 22:22:06 +0200 Message-ID: <87aa5krcb5.fsf@amiettinen-lnx.nvidia.com> References: <1326697201-32406-1-git-send-email-amiettinen@nvidia.com> <20120118034406.GD27153@mgross-G62> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org To: linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org mark gross writes: > Would it be possible for you to split this set up where you only have > the cpu_min_freq enabling in pos.c and cpufreq and make the rest of the > set a separate patch set? Would that be patches 1-5 vs the rest? > As you have it currently the parts I care about are intermixed with > controversial things (max freq and the new cpufreq exports). I think the cpufreq changes, patches 3-5, are necessary. Well, patch 3 is not necessary for functionality but would be helpful for debugging/diagnosis and IMHO makes sense as a companion to patch 4. The max freq is in patches 7 and 8. > Also could you make the entire set git am friendly? Only the first > patch am's the reset don't. Could you help me reproduce the problem? For me the mails apply fine. Also a colleague tested them and encountered no problems. When I know how to fix the set I'll post a split version. --Antti