On Mon, 2013-10-14 at 18:35 +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
On 10/14/2013 06:22 PM, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote:
On Mon, 2013-10-14 at 17:11 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 04:32:19PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
I noticed your mail and I sent a very similar patch adding the tracepoints for IPI a couple of hour ago.
Ah, cool - Liviu, Chris, I guess it should be OK to switch over to the upstream version once that's merged?
I'm wondering how I'm going to maintain the definitive bit.LITTLE MP branch [1] we point members/customers to.
I'm going to have to put all these fixups going into LSK into that branch too, and then that is going to have to get merged back into LSK, duplicating the commits already there. I guess that's OK, but seems like it would be cleaner if the patches went into the MP branch first.
[1] https://git.linaro.org/gitweb?p=arm/big.LITTLE/mp.git%3Ba=shortlog%3Bh=refs/...
Yes, sorry for that. When trying to identify the wake up sources in the idlestat tool, I noticed it was missing the IPI traces, so I went straight forward and send the patch to add these traces. Then I saw Mark's email...
Sorry Daniel, I wasn't suggesting you should have done anything different, you identified a missing kernel feature, implemented, and sent it upstream, all fine and as it should be :-)
My comments were aimed at people trying to manage LSK topics, and how we sort this sort of thing out. Complicated by the fact that two teams are maintaining two trees which are meant to have the same content.