On 28 June 2016 at 10:21, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
>
> On 28/06/16 02:03, Jim Wilson wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 3:01 AM, Kyrill Tkachov
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Jim,
>>>
>>> On 10/06/16 23:48, Jim Wilson wrote:
This adds a tuning structure for qdf24xx. This was tested with an
a
On 28/06/16 02:03, Jim Wilson wrote:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 3:01 AM, Kyrill Tkachov
wrote:
Hi Jim,
On 10/06/16 23:48, Jim Wilson wrote:
This adds a tuning structure for qdf24xx. This was tested with an
aarch64-linux bootstrap and a make check, with no regressions. I also
tested it with an
On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 3:01 AM, Kyrill Tkachov
wrote:
> Hi Jim,
>
> On 10/06/16 23:48, Jim Wilson wrote:
>>
>> This adds a tuning structure for qdf24xx. This was tested with an
>> aarch64-linux bootstrap and a make check, with no regressions. I also
>> tested it with an x86_64-linux C make chec
On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 1:53 AM, James Greenhalgh
wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 03:48:38PM -0700, Jim Wilson wrote:
>> This adds a tuning structure for qdf24xx. This was tested with an
> Have you seen my recent patch for Cortex-A57 that changes the costs there
> to be relative to the cost of
Hi Jim,
On 10/06/16 23:48, Jim Wilson wrote:
This adds a tuning structure for qdf24xx. This was tested with an
aarch64-linux bootstrap and a make check, with no regressions. I also
tested it with an x86_64-linux C make check to verify that I didn't
break the testsuite for non aarch64 targets.
On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 03:48:38PM -0700, Jim Wilson wrote:
> This adds a tuning structure for qdf24xx. This was tested with an
> aarch64-linux bootstrap and a make check, with no regressions. I also
> tested it with an x86_64-linux C make check to verify that I didn't
> break the testsuite for n
