From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dirk Brandewie Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Add P state driver for Intel Core Processors Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 07:34:56 -0800 Message-ID: <511D0420.8080608@gmail.com> References: <1360170133-5066-1-git-send-email-dirk.brandewie@gmail.com> <511BC16C.7040807@gmail.com> <1540905.Sh9giL2bZe@vostro.rjw.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=gn8RU+2sdE8ZKkYuaF8kgxgB5thvS2rFUuptPDzHZfo=; b=gyI031eNDiJ4R0SL2qrVdNbe9Dp5KfZWPNnmtHeAeyFJbtp6eKVlGHGBqeaHe9rYv8 Aj2Y5fe/wQ9RGGsG8B8hCrx0DKkLKark8vL7YiDMQBO5P7fcLAtafB8M0WXs3aZF+cKQ v2U8ffCvWiFKRfHt6Y8KDPdL/ac83RiSxO3NK4wQ26NIy8sgjdNE5kss7U8Hcj4PGw5t m1UhZj/cQuzOATDG8bTUT0ifrIa2rJAZfp96KoL12ZNHHnCvgoCxmAOhg/bEL1tG5Xlc kyy7meJ6EVIrris9ZW7sKyUwnQ/0vvDPofDqR6gRU8pxMr5D8EJ2s2lIepeQqN+YY8Aj 9+mw== In-Reply-To: <1540905.Sh9giL2bZe@vostro.rjw.lan> Sender: cpufreq-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: dirk.brandewie@gmail.com, Viresh Kumar , Dave Jones , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cpufreq@vger.kernel.org On 02/14/2013 04:21 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Thursday, February 14, 2013 09:38:21 AM Viresh Kumar wrote: >> On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 10:08 PM, Dirk Brandewie >> wrote: >>> For the case where both are built-in the load order works my driver uses >>> device_initcall() and acpi_cpufreq uses late_initcall(). >>> >>> For the case where both are a module (which I was sure I tested) you are >>> right >>> I will have to do something. >>> >>> For now I propose to make my driver built-in only while I sort out the right >>> solution for the module build. Does this seem reasonable to everyone? >> >> Of-course i am missing something here. Why would anybody want to insert >> acpi-cpufreq module when the system supports the pstate driver. >> >> In case they are mutually exclusive, then we can have something like >> depends on !ACPI-DRIVER in the kconfig option of pstate driver. > > Yes. Or the other way around (i.e. make acpi_cpufreq depend on > !X86_INTEL_PSTATE). > The issue is that acpi-cpufreq still needs to be available for Intel processors before SandyBridge and for other x86 compatible processors we can't make intel_pstate and acpi-cpufreq mutually exclusive. Having intel_pstate built-in solves the issue without the need to patch acpi-cpufreq. I believe that most distros build the scaling drivers in so the distro/user will make the explicit decision to use intel_pstate. > Thanks, > Rafael > >