Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 18 Feb 2014 16:35:26 -0800 | From | Dirk Brandewie <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/5] intel_pstate updates for v3.14-rcX |
| |
On 02/18/2014 04:43 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Tuesday, February 18, 2014 04:24:02 PM Dirk Brandewie wrote: >> On Tuesday, February 18, 2014, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> wrote: >> >>> On Tuesday, February 18, 2014 03:53:48 PM Dirk Brandewie wrote: >>>> On 02/18/2014 02:27 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>>>> On Tuesday, February 18, 2014 12:29:54 PM Dirk Brandewie wrote: >>>>>> Hi Rafael, >>>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>>> On 02/12/2014 10:01 AM, dirk.brandewie@gmail.com <javascript:;>wrote: >>>>>>> From: Dirk Brandewie <dirk.j.brandewie@intel.com <javascript:;>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Based on v3.14-rc2 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Patch 1 removes energy reporting the patch from Maurizio Lambardi >>>>>>> intel_pstate: fix race condition in intel_pstate_init() can be >>> dropped. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Any reason why patches 2-5 did not make rc3 other than timing? >>>>>> >>>>>> Patches 2/3 can easily wait for v3.15.x >>>>>> >>>>>> Patches 4/5 fix bugs that are in the wild. >>>>> >>>>> I asked you about them, but you didn't reply: >>>>> >>>>> http://marc.info/?l=linux-pm&m=139225158531023&w=4 >>>>> >>>>> Again, do patches [4-5/5] depend on [2-3/5]? >>>>> >>>>> If not, I can queue them up for -rc4. >>>> >>>> All the patches are independent of one another. >>>> >>>> Patch 2 is straight cleanup no functional change but reduces the memory >>>> footprint slightly. >>>> >>>> Patch 3 is a bug that will only be seen when the PID is reset at init >>> time >>>> or when a change is made to PID params via debugfs. The problem will >>> only >>>> exist for one sample time since it is setting last_err in the PID. >>>> >>>> Patch 4-5 are bugs found during Baytrail-T testing >>> >>> Are there any pointers to bug reports that may be included in the >>> changelogs >>> of these? >> >> >> No. I got the reports via email. I could probably get the reporters to >> file bugzillas. > > It would be good to add information about what machines are affected > and what the user-visible problems are to the changelogs for future > reference. > > And do we want these two patches in -stable? If so, what -stable series should > they go into?
Patch 2 v3.10+
Patch 3 v3.12+
Patch 4/5 v3.13+
--Dirk > > Rafael >
| |