Re: [PATCH v4 00/10] arm, arm64, cpufreq: frequency- and cpu-invariant accounting support for task scheduler

[Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>]

Hi Rafael,

On 31/08/17 12:27, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> Hi Raphael,
> 
> On 31/08/17 00:34, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Friday, August 25, 2017 4:31:56 PM CEST Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
>>> [1] https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=149625018223002&w=2
>>> [2] https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=150118402232039&w=2
>>> [3] https://marc.info/?l=linux-pm&m=149933474313566&w=2
>>> [4] http://arminfo.emea.arm.com/help/topic/com.arm.doc.den0056a/DEN0056A_System_Control_and_Management_Interface.pdf
>>> [5] https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=149690865010019&w=2
>>>
>>> Dietmar Eggemann (10):
>>>   drivers base/arch_topology: free cpumask cpus_to_visit
>>>   cpufreq: provide default frequency-invariance setter function
>>>   cpufreq: arm_big_little: invoke frequency-invariance setter function
>>>   cpufreq: dt: invoke frequency-invariance setter function
>>>   drivers base/arch_topology: provide frequency-invariant accounting
>>>     support
>>>   drivers base/arch_topology: allow inlining cpu-invariant accounting
>>>     support
>>>   arm: wire frequency-invariant accounting support up to the task
>>>     scheduler
>>>   arm: wire cpu-invariant accounting support up to the task scheduler
>>>   arm64: wire frequency-invariant accounting support up to the task
>>>     scheduler
>>>   arm64: wire cpu-invariant accounting support up to the task scheduler
>>>
>>>  arch/arm/include/asm/topology.h   |  8 ++++++++
>>>  arch/arm64/include/asm/topology.h |  8 ++++++++
>>>  drivers/base/arch_topology.c      | 29 +++++++++++++++++++++++------
>>>  drivers/cpufreq/arm_big_little.c  | 10 +++++++++-
>>>  drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-dt.c      | 12 ++++++++++--
>>>  drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c         |  6 ++++++
>>>  include/linux/arch_topology.h     | 18 +++++++++++++++++-
>>>  include/linux/cpufreq.h           |  3 +++
>>>  8 files changed, 84 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>>>
>>>
>>
>> FWIW, patches [2-4/10] in this series are fine by me, but I guess you
>> need to talk to Viresh about the [3-4/10] anyway.
> 
> Thanks for the review! Viresh already gave me his 'Acked-by' for
> [3-4/10] during the v3 review.
> 
> Since this patch-set touches different subsystems I wonder via which
> tree it should go upstream? Could it go via your linux-pm tree or should
> I ask Greg K-H?

Ping.

I don't expect any more review on this patch-set. It's only patch PATCH
v4 02/10] which has no Acked-By yet.

Thanks,

-- Dietmar