From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: [v7 PATCH 0/7]: cpuidle/x86/POWER: Cleanup idle power management code in x86, cleanup drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c and introduce cpuidle to POWER. Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2009 15:24:17 +0200 Message-ID: <1254921857.26976.249.camel@twins> References: <20091006152421.GA7278@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20091006163521.GA10425@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1254852279.17055.2.camel@laptop> <20091007112648.GC7646@dirshya.in.ibm.com> <20091007114719.GH6818@balbir.in.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20091007114719.GH6818@balbir.in.ibm.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linuxppc-dev-bounces+glppd-linuxppc64-dev=m.gmane.org@lists.ozlabs.org Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+glppd-linuxppc64-dev=m.gmane.org@lists.ozlabs.org To: balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Gautham R Shenoy , Venkatesh Pallipadi , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Paul Mackerras , arun@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Ingo Molnar , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Arjan van de Ven List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2009-10-07 at 17:17 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote: > > The objective of the refactoring is to have a single common idle > > routine management framework (remove pm_idle) and we have it done > > through cpuidle registration framework. We can incrementally remove > > the per-cpu registration later easily by splitting the cpuidle_driver > > structure. > > > > Yes, incremental refactoring makes the most sense from the do not > break as you refactor point of view. Sure,.. but I would have though getting rid of the per-cpu-ish-ness would have made the latter patches in this series easier. But maybe I'm lazy ;-) Let me go over the patches one more time, but they do look ok. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from viefep18-int.chello.at ([62.179.121.38]:56451 "EHLO viefep18-int.chello.at" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933539AbZJGNVm (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Oct 2009 09:21:42 -0400 Subject: Re: [v7 PATCH 0/7]: cpuidle/x86/POWER: Cleanup idle power management code in x86, cleanup drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c and introduce cpuidle to POWER. From: Peter Zijlstra In-Reply-To: <20091007114719.GH6818@balbir.in.ibm.com> References: <20091006152421.GA7278@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20091006163521.GA10425@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1254852279.17055.2.camel@laptop> <20091007112648.GC7646@dirshya.in.ibm.com> <20091007114719.GH6818@balbir.in.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2009 15:24:17 +0200 Message-ID: <1254921857.26976.249.camel@twins> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com Cc: Vaidyanathan Srinivasan , Arjan van de Ven , arun@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Joel Schopp , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Paul Mackerras , Ingo Molnar , Dipankar Sarma , Gautham R Shenoy , Venkatesh Pallipadi , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20091007132417.Gc1kh1F36FvfF3-gipnoBYxCa1WoNTDncGbkzcVm5zk@z> On Wed, 2009-10-07 at 17:17 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote: > > The objective of the refactoring is to have a single common idle > > routine management framework (remove pm_idle) and we have it done > > through cpuidle registration framework. We can incrementally remove > > the per-cpu registration later easily by splitting the cpuidle_driver > > structure. > > > > Yes, incremental refactoring makes the most sense from the do not > break as you refactor point of view. Sure,.. but I would have though getting rid of the per-cpu-ish-ness would have made the latter patches in this series easier. But maybe I'm lazy ;-) Let me go over the patches one more time, but they do look ok.