From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sudeep Holla Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/5] ACPI / processor_idle: introduce ACPI_PROCESSOR_CSTATE Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 10:10:56 +0100 Message-ID: <573448A0.5030003@arm.com> References: <1462981062-24909-1-git-send-email-sudeep.holla@arm.com> <1462981062-24909-2-git-send-email-sudeep.holla@arm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-ia64-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Len Brown Cc: Sudeep Holla , linux acpi , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Vikas Sajjan , Sunil , Prashanth Prakash , Ashwin Chaugule , Al Stone , Lorenzo Pieralisi , X86 ML , linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org (I seem to have 2 emails, replying on the second) On 11/05/16 19:28, Len Brown wrote: > What is the functional goal/purpose of adding CONFIG_ACPI_PROCESSOR_CSTATE? > Avoid adding unnecessary dummy implementations of functions and variables that will never be used on ARM64 and also looks ugly IMO. E.g.: arch_safe_halt boot_option_idle_override IDLE_NOMWAIT acpi_unlazy_tlb acpi_processor_cstate_check disabled_by_idle_boot_param and more... > If the answer is that it saves code space on an ARM build, how much > space does it save? > NO, it doesn't even add a kB of code I believe, so that's definitely not the reason. I am fine to retain if we can find a saner way to solve the above issue. -- Regards, Sudeep