Hi Vishwanath,
Thanks. I will take it as a reference.
Yong
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Vishwanath Sripathy < vishwanath.sripathy@linaro.org> wrote:
Yong,
On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 9:21 PM, Yong Shen yong.shen@linaro.org wrote:
Hi Arnaud, I also took a while to think about this before posting patches. I prefer
to
put it in board related code since the various PMIC used on each boards
may
have influence on cpuidle latency or other charactors, although it could
be
minor.
WHy don't you define cpuidle_latency table per board file and use the right one inside the common cpuidle driver. Then you can take care of board related latencies cleanly.
Vishwa
Yong
On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 4:29 PM, Arnaud Patard <arnaud.patard@rtp-net.org
wrote:
yong.shen@linaro.org writes:
Hi,
From: Yong Shen yong.shen@freescale.com
Add cpuidle parameters to make cpuidle driver workable, but these parameters need further tuning
Signed-off-by: Yong Shen yong.shen@freescale.com
arch/arm/mach-mx5/board-mx51_babbage.c | 114 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ arch/arm/mach-mx5/devices.c | 4 + arch/arm/mach-mx5/devices.h | 1 + 3 files changed, 119 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
I didn't look at how it's working nor did a review but from a very quick look, I'm wondering why it's in board-mx51_babbage.c. Can you explain to me what makes this code specific to babbage ?
Arnaud
linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev