From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Lezcano Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] acpi: intel_idle : break dependency between modules Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2012 21:36:37 +0200 Message-ID: <4FF0A6C5.5080509@linaro.org> References: <201206271506.29034.trenn@suse.de> <201206282124.09857.rjw@sisk.pl> <4FED69BE.20707@linaro.org> <201206300027.05175.rjw@sisk.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: <201206300027.05175.rjw@sisk.pl> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org, Andrew Morton , linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Colin Cross , linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On 06/30/2012 12:27 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Friday, June 29, 2012, Daniel Lezcano wrote: >> On 06/28/2012 09:24 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>> On Thursday, June 28, 2012, Daniel Lezcano wrote: >>>> When the system is booted with some cpus offline, the idle >>>> driver is not initialized. When a cpu is set online, the >>>> acpi code call the intel idle init function. Unfortunately >>>> this code introduce a dependency between intel_idle and acpi. >>>> >>>> This patch is intended to remove this dependency by using the >>>> notifier of intel_idle. This patch has the benefit of >>>> encapsulating the intel_idle driver and remove some exported >>>> functions. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano >>> >>> This one looks good to me too. >>> >>> Acked-by: Rafael J. Wysocki >> >> Thanks for the review Rafael. >> >>> Len, are you going to take it? >> >> Rafael, Len, >> >> After the discussion [1], I put in place a tree at: >> >> ssh://git.linaro.org/srv/git.linaro.org/git/people/dlezcano/cpuidle-ne= xt.git >> #cpuidle-next >> >> I proposed this tree to group the cpuidle modifications and prevent th= e >> last minutes conflict when Len will apply them. >> >> I also included the tree into linux-next for wider testing. >=20 > I can't speak for Len, but I'm not sure he'll like this. I sent the proposition a week ago and Len was Cc'ed. I guess he is very busy but the problem we are facing is there are a lot of pending modifications for cpuidle because of some new architecture (like the big.LITTLE and tegra3). Colin's patchset is one of them. > Anyway, you seem to have the same material as Len in that tree, won't t= here > be any conflicts in linux-next? At the first glance no, until he merge the patches we sent. As I already said the purpose is to help to consolidate the patches sent for cpuidle by acting as a proxy. I hope that helps. Thanks -- Daniel --=20 Linaro.org =E2=94=82 Open source software for A= RM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog