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 10:11:45 +0100 Message-ID: <559E3AD1.4050805@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: Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:44993 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751531AbbGIJLt (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Jul 2015 05:11:49 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@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 On 08/07/15 22:46, Ashwin Chaugule wrote: > On 8 July 2015 at 16:46, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> Hi Ashwin, > > Hi, > >> On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 10:28 PM, 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, >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 9:16 PM, Ashwin Chaugule >>>>> 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