From: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>
Cc: Venkatesh Pallipadi <venki@google.com>,
Mark Gross <markgross@thegnar.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Linux PM mailing list <linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
Jean Pihet <j-pihet@ti.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PM / QoS: unconditionally build the feature
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 20:27:24 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120217192724.GC2707@elf.ucw.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201202131641.10535.rjw@sisk.pl>
On Mon 2012-02-13 16:41:10, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, February 13, 2012, Jean Pihet wrote:
> > The PM QoS feature depends on CONFIG_PM which depends on
> > PM_SLEEP || PM_RUNTIME. This breaks CPU C-states with kernels
> > not having these CONFIGs.
> >
> > This patch allows the feature in all cases.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jean Pihet <j-pihet@ti.com>
> > Reported-by: Venkatesh Pallipadi <venki@google.com>
> > Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl>
> > Cc: Mark Gross <markgross@thegnar.org>
>
> Applied, but I modified the changelog (please have a look at the
> linux-pm/pm-qos branch for details).
Is it good idea? For servers, power management / QoS is not
neccessary... What about fixing kconfig, instead?
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>
Cc: Jean Pihet <jean.pihet@newoldbits.com>,
Venkatesh Pallipadi <venki@google.com>,
Linux PM mailing list <linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
Jean Pihet <j-pihet@ti.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Mark Gross <markgross@thegnar.org>
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH] PM / QoS: unconditionally build the feature
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 20:27:24 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120217192724.GC2707@elf.ucw.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201202131641.10535.rjw@sisk.pl>
On Mon 2012-02-13 16:41:10, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, February 13, 2012, Jean Pihet wrote:
> > The PM QoS feature depends on CONFIG_PM which depends on
> > PM_SLEEP || PM_RUNTIME. This breaks CPU C-states with kernels
> > not having these CONFIGs.
> >
> > This patch allows the feature in all cases.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jean Pihet <j-pihet@ti.com>
> > Reported-by: Venkatesh Pallipadi <venki@google.com>
> > Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl>
> > Cc: Mark Gross <markgross@thegnar.org>
>
> Applied, but I modified the changelog (please have a look at the
> linux-pm/pm-qos branch for details).
Is it good idea? For servers, power management / QoS is not
neccessary... What about fixing kconfig, instead?
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-02-17 19:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-02-07 8:34 [PATCH 0/2] PM / QoS: unconditionally build the feature Jean Pihet
2012-02-07 8:34 ` [PATCH 1/2] " Jean Pihet
2012-02-12 2:06 ` mark gross
2012-02-12 2:06 ` mark gross
2012-02-12 21:37 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2012-02-12 21:37 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2012-02-13 13:50 ` [PATCH] " Jean Pihet
2012-02-13 15:41 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2012-02-13 15:41 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2012-02-13 15:40 ` Jean Pihet
2012-02-13 15:40 ` Jean Pihet
2012-02-17 19:27 ` Pavel Machek [this message]
2012-02-17 19:27 ` [linux-pm] " Pavel Machek
2012-02-17 20:48 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2012-02-17 20:48 ` [linux-pm] " Rafael J. Wysocki
2012-02-07 8:34 ` [PATCH 2/2] PM / QoS: unconditionally build the per-device constraints feature Jean Pihet
2012-02-12 2:07 ` mark gross
2012-02-12 2:07 ` mark gross
2012-02-12 21:27 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2012-02-12 21:27 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2012-02-15 15:33 ` mark gross
2012-02-15 15:33 ` mark gross
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20120217192724.GC2707@elf.ucw.cz \
--to=pavel@ucw.cz \
--cc=j-pihet@ti.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=markgross@thegnar.org \
--cc=rjw@sisk.pl \
--cc=venki@google.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.