From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sudeep Holla Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 2/7] ACPI: Make ACPI processor driver more extensible Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2015 10:06:34 +0100 Message-ID: <559E399A.7000003@arm.com> References: <9e352cbe2feac01158a21511bac5c544dc2f29e2.1434398373.git.ashwin.chaugule@linaro.org> <2138469.Io9yItSdst@vostro.rjw.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Ashwin Chaugule , "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Sudeep Holla , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Jaswinder Singh , "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" , Linaro ACPI Mailman List , Patch Tracking , linux acpi , Viresh Kumar List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org Hi, On 08/07/15 21:28, Ashwin Chaugule wrote: > On 8 July 2015 at 16:05, Ashwin Chaugule wrote: >> On 8 July 2015 at 15:55, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>> Hi Ashwin, [...] >>> >>> Can you please just send the new version of the $subject patch alone for now? >> >> Attached below. (hope that worked.) >> >>> >>> Also I'm still unsure what the connection between _CST and CPPC is. >>> >> >> There isnt. But I'm missing where I've implied the dependency? > > Perhaps the confusion is coming from the introduction of ACPI_CST in > this file. I could leave it as it is and just separate out the > ACPI_PSS bits. But I figured, while I'm at it, I'd introduce ACPI_CST, > since we know the LPI stuff is coming up soon as a CST alternative > anyway. So if you prefer, I can drop the CST bits and maybe Sudeep can > address that as part of his LPI patchset? > Correct, I will handle it as a prerequisite for introducing _LPI support. I had posted an RFC long back, will revive those patches and repost them soon. It's better to enable ACPI_PROCESSOR on ARM64 only after we have all these dependencies resolved. Until then we need to carry some patches locally for testing. Regards, Sudeep