Re: [PATCH 0/6] Intel pstate driver update

Re: [PATCH 0/6] Intel pstate driver update

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Tuesday, May 07, 2013 08:20:24 AM dirk.brandewie@gmail.com wrote:
> From: dirk <dirk.brandewie@gmail.com>
> 
> Collection of updates for cpufreq/intel_pstate.c
> 
> Patches 1-3 are bugfixes and marked for stable
> 
> Patches 4-6 are code cleanup with no functional changes.
> 
> 
> Dirk Brandewie (6):
>   cpufreq/intel_pstate: remove idle time and duration from sample and
>     calculations
>   cpufreq/intel_pstate: use lowest requested max performance
>   cpufreq/intel_pstate: fix ffmpeg regression
>   cpufreq/intel_pstate: Remove idle mode PID
>   cpufreq/intel_pstate: Remove unused code
>   cpufreq/intel_pstate: remove #ifdef MODULE compile fence
> 
>  drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c | 122 +++++++----------------------------------
>  1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 102 deletions(-)

All queued up for a post-3.10-rc1 push as 3.10 material, but I have a couple
of comments.

First, the patches didn't apply for me cleanly.  I needed to fix up one of
them manually to make it apply and patch [5/6] didn't appear to be necessary
at all (it made changes that had been made previously).  Please check the
bleeding-edge branch of my tree to see if the code is what you wanted and
let me know (either way).

Second, can you please CC your cpufreq submissions to linux-pm@vger.kernel.org?
That will allow me to use Patchwork for managing them, which is much more
convenient than plain email.

Thanks,
Rafael


-- 
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.

Re: [PATCH 0/6] Intel pstate driver update

[Dirk Brandewie]

On 05/07/2013 05:07 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 07, 2013 08:20:24 AM dirk.brandewie@gmail.com wrote:
>> From: dirk <dirk.brandewie@gmail.com>
>>
> All queued up for a post-3.10-rc1 push as 3.10 material, but I have a couple
> of comments.
>
> First, the patches didn't apply for me cleanly.  I needed to fix up one of
> them manually to make it apply and patch [5/6] didn't appear to be necessary
> at all (it made changes that had been made previously).  Please check the
> bleeding-edge branch of my tree to see if the code is what you wanted and
> let me know (either way).
>
Srinivas's commit d1b6848 collided with my 5/6 patch. my patches were based off 
of v3.9. Which branch of yours should I base my submissions on?

linux-pm/bleeding-edge is correct.

> Second, can you please CC your cpufreq submissions to linux-pm@vger.kernel.org?
> That will allow me to use Patchwork for managing them, which is much more
> convenient than plain email.
>

No problem

--Dirk

> Thanks,
> Rafael
>
>

Re: [PATCH 0/6] Intel pstate driver update

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Tuesday, May 07, 2013 05:21:59 PM Dirk Brandewie wrote:
> On 05/07/2013 05:07 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 07, 2013 08:20:24 AM dirk.brandewie@gmail.com wrote:
> >> From: dirk <dirk.brandewie@gmail.com>
> >>
> > All queued up for a post-3.10-rc1 push as 3.10 material, but I have a couple
> > of comments.
> >
> > First, the patches didn't apply for me cleanly.  I needed to fix up one of
> > them manually to make it apply and patch [5/6] didn't appear to be necessary
> > at all (it made changes that had been made previously).  Please check the
> > bleeding-edge branch of my tree to see if the code is what you wanted and
> > let me know (either way).
> >
> Srinivas's commit d1b6848 collided with my 5/6 patch. my patches were based off 
> of v3.9. Which branch of yours should I base my submissions on?

Usually, linux-next is a safe bet.

> linux-pm/bleeding-edge is correct.

Good.

> > Second, can you please CC your cpufreq submissions to linux-pm@vger.kernel.org?
> > That will allow me to use Patchwork for managing them, which is much more
> > convenient than plain email.
> >
> 
> No problem

Thanks!

Rafael


-- 
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.