From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kevin Hilman Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 0/8] Consolidate cpuidle functionality Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 15:48:45 -0700 Message-ID: <873992zy5u.fsf@ti.com> References: <1332274969-15782-1-git-send-email-rob.lee@linaro.org> <201203202158.08042.arnd.bergmann@linaro.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from na3sys009aog136.obsmtp.com ([74.125.149.85]:58135 "EHLO psmtp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759098Ab2CTWsx (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Mar 2012 18:48:53 -0400 Received: by mail-pz0-f47.google.com with SMTP id o14so782036dad.34 for ; Tue, 20 Mar 2012 15:48:52 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <201203202158.08042.arnd.bergmann@linaro.org> (Arnd Bergmann's message of "Tue, 20 Mar 2012 21:58:07 +0000") Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: Arnd Bergmann Cc: Robert Lee , len.brown@intel.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, rjw@sisk.pl, robherring2@gmail.com, Baohua.Song@csr.com, amit.kucheria@linaro.org, nicolas.ferre@atmel.com, linux@maxim.org.za, kgene.kim@samsung.com, amit.kachhap@linaro.org, magnus.damm@gmail.com, nsekhar@ti.com, daniel.lezcano@linaro.org, mturquette@linaro.org, vincent.guittot@linaro.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org, patches@linaro.org, deepthi@linux.vnet.ibm.com, broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com, nicolas.pitre@linaro.org, linux@arm.linux.org.uk, jean.pihet@newoldbits.com, venki@google.com, ccross@google.com, g.trinabh@gmail.com, kernel@wantstofly.org, lethal@linux-sh.org, jon-hunter@ti.com, tony@atomide.com, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org Arnd Bergmann writes: > On Tuesday 20 March 2012, Robert Lee wrote: >> This patch series moves various functionality duplicated in platform >> cpuidle drivers to the core cpuidle driver. Also, the platform irq >> disabling was removed as it appears that all calls into >> cpuidle_call_idle will have already called local_irq_disable(). >> >> These changes have been pulled into linux-next. >> >> Len, Andrew, can a request be made for Linus to pull these changes? > > FWIW, Len seems to be rather inactive on the kernel mailing list right > now and generally not very interested in anything outside of x86 and > acpi. If he doesn't reply in the next few days and Andrew also isn't > interested in handling these patches, I'd suggest you just send the pull > request to Linus, with Len on Cc and explain that you tried to send > them through him but gave up in the end. FWIW, I have not had good luck getting response for proposed core CPUidle changes either: http://lkml.org/lkml/2011/9/19/374 Maybe it's time that drivers/cpuidle gets a maintainer. With lots of discussions of scheduler changes that affect load estimation, I suspect we're all going to have a bit of CPUidle work to do in the not-so-distant future. Kevin From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kevin Hilman Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 22:48:45 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 0/8] Consolidate cpuidle functionality Message-Id: <873992zy5u.fsf@ti.com> List-Id: References: <1332274969-15782-1-git-send-email-rob.lee@linaro.org> <201203202158.08042.arnd.bergmann@linaro.org> In-Reply-To: <201203202158.08042.arnd.bergmann@linaro.org> (Arnd Bergmann's message of "Tue, 20 Mar 2012 21:58:07 +0000") MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Arnd Bergmann writes: > On Tuesday 20 March 2012, Robert Lee wrote: >> This patch series moves various functionality duplicated in platform >> cpuidle drivers to the core cpuidle driver. Also, the platform irq >> disabling was removed as it appears that all calls into >> cpuidle_call_idle will have already called local_irq_disable(). >> >> These changes have been pulled into linux-next. >> >> Len, Andrew, can a request be made for Linus to pull these changes? > > FWIW, Len seems to be rather inactive on the kernel mailing list right > now and generally not very interested in anything outside of x86 and > acpi. If he doesn't reply in the next few days and Andrew also isn't > interested in handling these patches, I'd suggest you just send the pull > request to Linus, with Len on Cc and explain that you tried to send > them through him but gave up in the end. FWIW, I have not had good luck getting response for proposed core CPUidle changes either: http://lkml.org/lkml/2011/9/19/374 Maybe it's time that drivers/cpuidle gets a maintainer. With lots of discussions of scheduler changes that affect load estimation, I suspect we're all going to have a bit of CPUidle work to do in the not-so-distant future. Kevin From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: khilman@ti.com (Kevin Hilman) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 15:48:45 -0700 Subject: [PATCH v8 0/8] Consolidate cpuidle functionality In-Reply-To: <201203202158.08042.arnd.bergmann@linaro.org> (Arnd Bergmann's message of "Tue, 20 Mar 2012 21:58:07 +0000") References: <1332274969-15782-1-git-send-email-rob.lee@linaro.org> <201203202158.08042.arnd.bergmann@linaro.org> Message-ID: <873992zy5u.fsf@ti.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Arnd Bergmann writes: > On Tuesday 20 March 2012, Robert Lee wrote: >> This patch series moves various functionality duplicated in platform >> cpuidle drivers to the core cpuidle driver. Also, the platform irq >> disabling was removed as it appears that all calls into >> cpuidle_call_idle will have already called local_irq_disable(). >> >> These changes have been pulled into linux-next. >> >> Len, Andrew, can a request be made for Linus to pull these changes? > > FWIW, Len seems to be rather inactive on the kernel mailing list right > now and generally not very interested in anything outside of x86 and > acpi. If he doesn't reply in the next few days and Andrew also isn't > interested in handling these patches, I'd suggest you just send the pull > request to Linus, with Len on Cc and explain that you tried to send > them through him but gave up in the end. FWIW, I have not had good luck getting response for proposed core CPUidle changes either: http://lkml.org/lkml/2011/9/19/374 Maybe it's time that drivers/cpuidle gets a maintainer. With lots of discussions of scheduler changes that affect load estimation, I suspect we're all going to have a bit of CPUidle work to do in the not-so-distant future. Kevin