Re: [PATCH v6 2/7] ACPI: Make ACPI processor driver more extensible

[Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>]

On 08/07/15 22:46, Ashwin Chaugule wrote:
> On 8 July 2015 at 16:46, Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@kernel.org> wrote:
>> Hi Ashwin,
>
> Hi,
>
>> On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 10:28 PM, Ashwin Chaugule
>> <ashwin.chaugule@linaro.org> wrote:
>>> On 8 July 2015 at 16:05, Ashwin Chaugule <ashwin.chaugule@linaro.org> wrote:
>>>> On 8 July 2015 at 15:55, Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@kernel.org> wrote:
>>>>> Hi Ashwin,
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 9:16 PM, Ashwin Chaugule
>>>>> <ashwin.chaugule@linaro.org> wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Rafael,
>>>>>>
>>
>> [cut]
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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?
>>
>> Yes, please.  That would be much less confusing.
>
> Deja Vu. :)
>
> When I let processor_driver and processor_idle compile on ARM64, I get
> a bunch of errors because processor_idle.c contains a lot of X86
> specific defines. That is why I'd created the ACPI_CST option which
> we'd enable only on X86.
>
> I'm not entirely sure what these enums and functions should default
> to, or what they should be on ARM specifically. Given that on ARM64
> we're likely to use LPI as against CST, it seems the original approach
> is better. Thoughts?

Correct, I addressed this in my RFC posting[1] and wanted to get
feedback from Rafael before proceeding. As I said in other email,
I will try to rebase and repost that series ASAP.

Regards,
Sudeep

[1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/5/6/486