[PATCH 1/9] ARM: cpuidle: remove useless declaration

[PATCH 1/9] ARM: cpuidle: remove useless declaration

[Daniel Lezcano]

Hi Rafael,

I noticed this patchset went to the linux-arm-project in patchwork but
it was addressed to you / linux-pm. AFAIU, you rely on patchwork to
manage the patches, I was wondering if you could have missed them ?

Thanks
  -- Daniel

[PATCH 1/9] ARM: cpuidle: remove useless declaration

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Wednesday, April 03, 2013 12:56:59 PM Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> 
> Hi Rafael,
> 
> I noticed this patchset went to the linux-arm-project in patchwork but
> it was addressed to you / linux-pm. AFAIU, you rely on patchwork to
> manage the patches, I was wondering if you could have missed them ?

I didn't miss it, but I thought that the ARM people would take the patches.

If I'm supposed to take those patches, I need ACKs from every maintainer in
question.  If the patches have been ACKed already, please resend them with the
ACKs.

Thanks,
Rafael


-- 
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.

[PATCH 1/9] ARM: cpuidle: remove useless declaration

[Daniel Lezcano]

On 04/03/2013 01:07 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 03, 2013 12:56:59 PM Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>
>> Hi Rafael,
>>
>> I noticed this patchset went to the linux-arm-project in patchwork but
>> it was addressed to you / linux-pm. AFAIU, you rely on patchwork to
>> manage the patches, I was wondering if you could have missed them ?
> 
> I didn't miss it, but I thought that the ARM people would take the patches.
> 
> If I'm supposed to take those patches, I need ACKs from every maintainer in
> question.  If the patches have been ACKed already, please resend them with the
> ACKs.

Ok.

-- 
 <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org ? Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog

[PATCH 1/9] ARM: cpuidle: remove useless declaration

[Daniel Lezcano]

The noop functions code is not necessary because the header file is
included in files which are compiled when CONFIG_CPU_IDLE is on.

Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
---
 arch/arm/include/asm/cpuidle.h |    7 +------
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/cpuidle.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/cpuidle.h
index 2fca60a..7367787 100644
--- a/arch/arm/include/asm/cpuidle.h
+++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/cpuidle.h
@@ -1,13 +1,8 @@
 #ifndef __ASM_ARM_CPUIDLE_H
 #define __ASM_ARM_CPUIDLE_H
 
-#ifdef CONFIG_CPU_IDLE
 extern int arm_cpuidle_simple_enter(struct cpuidle_device *dev,
-		struct cpuidle_driver *drv, int index);
-#else
-static inline int arm_cpuidle_simple_enter(struct cpuidle_device *dev,
-		struct cpuidle_driver *drv, int index) { return -ENODEV; }
-#endif
+				    struct cpuidle_driver *drv, int index);
 
 /* Common ARM WFI state */
 #define ARM_CPUIDLE_WFI_STATE_PWR(p) {\
-- 
1.7.9.5

[PATCH 1/9] ARM: cpuidle: remove useless declaration

[Daniel Lezcano]

On 04/03/2013 02:15 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> The noop functions code is not necessary because the header file is
> included in files which are compiled when CONFIG_CPU_IDLE is on.
>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>

I have been involved in the development of this file. I know Rob is no
longer working on this neither monitoring the code.

Russell are you ok with this patch ? Rafael needs your ack to take this
patch into its tree.

Thanks

-- Daniel

> ---
>  arch/arm/include/asm/cpuidle.h |    7 +------
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/cpuidle.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/cpuidle.h
> index 2fca60a..7367787 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/cpuidle.h
> +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/cpuidle.h
> @@ -1,13 +1,8 @@
>  #ifndef __ASM_ARM_CPUIDLE_H
>  #define __ASM_ARM_CPUIDLE_H
>  
> -#ifdef CONFIG_CPU_IDLE
>  extern int arm_cpuidle_simple_enter(struct cpuidle_device *dev,
> -		struct cpuidle_driver *drv, int index);
> -#else
> -static inline int arm_cpuidle_simple_enter(struct cpuidle_device *dev,
> -		struct cpuidle_driver *drv, int index) { return -ENODEV; }
> -#endif
> +				    struct cpuidle_driver *drv, int index);
>  
>  /* Common ARM WFI state */
>  #define ARM_CPUIDLE_WFI_STATE_PWR(p) {\


-- 
 <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org ? Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog

[PATCH 1/9] ARM: cpuidle: remove useless declaration

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Wednesday, April 03, 2013 02:23:23 PM Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 04/03/2013 02:15 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> > The noop functions code is not necessary because the header file is
> > included in files which are compiled when CONFIG_CPU_IDLE is on.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
> 
> I have been involved in the development of this file. I know Rob is no
> longer working on this neither monitoring the code.
> 
> Russell are you ok with this patch ? Rafael needs your ack to take this
> patch into its tree.

Well, since nothing in the cpuidle directory seems to really depend on this
patch, my suggestion is to merge it through the ARM tree when suitable.

Thanks,
Rafael


> > ---
> >  arch/arm/include/asm/cpuidle.h |    7 +------
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/cpuidle.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/cpuidle.h
> > index 2fca60a..7367787 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/cpuidle.h
> > +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/cpuidle.h
> > @@ -1,13 +1,8 @@
> >  #ifndef __ASM_ARM_CPUIDLE_H
> >  #define __ASM_ARM_CPUIDLE_H
> >  
> > -#ifdef CONFIG_CPU_IDLE
> >  extern int arm_cpuidle_simple_enter(struct cpuidle_device *dev,
> > -		struct cpuidle_driver *drv, int index);
> > -#else
> > -static inline int arm_cpuidle_simple_enter(struct cpuidle_device *dev,
> > -		struct cpuidle_driver *drv, int index) { return -ENODEV; }
> > -#endif
> > +				    struct cpuidle_driver *drv, int index);
> >  
> >  /* Common ARM WFI state */
> >  #define ARM_CPUIDLE_WFI_STATE_PWR(p) {\
> 
> 
> 
-- 
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.

[PATCH 1/9] ARM: cpuidle: remove useless declaration

[Daniel Lezcano]

On 04/08/2013 10:50 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 03, 2013 02:23:23 PM Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> On 04/03/2013 02:15 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>> The noop functions code is not necessary because the header file is
>>> included in files which are compiled when CONFIG_CPU_IDLE is on.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
>>
>> I have been involved in the development of this file. I know Rob is no
>> longer working on this neither monitoring the code.
>>
>> Russell are you ok with this patch ? Rafael needs your ack to take this
>> patch into its tree.
> 
> Well, since nothing in the cpuidle directory seems to really depend on this
> patch, my suggestion is to merge it through the ARM tree when suitable.

Ok.


>>> ---
>>>  arch/arm/include/asm/cpuidle.h |    7 +------
>>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/cpuidle.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/cpuidle.h
>>> index 2fca60a..7367787 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/cpuidle.h
>>> +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/cpuidle.h
>>> @@ -1,13 +1,8 @@
>>>  #ifndef __ASM_ARM_CPUIDLE_H
>>>  #define __ASM_ARM_CPUIDLE_H
>>>  
>>> -#ifdef CONFIG_CPU_IDLE
>>>  extern int arm_cpuidle_simple_enter(struct cpuidle_device *dev,
>>> -		struct cpuidle_driver *drv, int index);
>>> -#else
>>> -static inline int arm_cpuidle_simple_enter(struct cpuidle_device *dev,
>>> -		struct cpuidle_driver *drv, int index) { return -ENODEV; }
>>> -#endif
>>> +				    struct cpuidle_driver *drv, int index);
>>>  
>>>  /* Common ARM WFI state */
>>>  #define ARM_CPUIDLE_WFI_STATE_PWR(p) {\
>>
>>
>>


-- 
 <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org ? Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog

[PATCH 1/9] ARM: cpuidle: remove useless declaration

[Russell King - ARM Linux]

On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 02:23:23PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 04/03/2013 02:15 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> > The noop functions code is not necessary because the header file is
> > included in files which are compiled when CONFIG_CPU_IDLE is on.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
> 
> I have been involved in the development of this file. I know Rob is no
> longer working on this neither monitoring the code.
> 
> Russell are you ok with this patch ? Rafael needs your ack to take this
> patch into its tree.

I don't know - the description doesn't make it clear.  Surely, what you
checked was that this file is _not_ included in any file which is built
when CONFIG_CPU_IDLE is disabled.  In other words, when CONFIG_CPU_IDLE
is not defined, arm_cpuidle_simple_enter() is never referenced.

If that is the case, then it's just that the patch description is the
opposite of what it should be for this patch - and then the patch and
description match and I don't see any reason to say no to it.

Then comes the issue of who takes the patch.  It looks like Rafael
would like me to.  I'm fine with that, but it will need to go into the
patch system as I'm rather busy catching up with email, and I expect
to be catching up for at least the rest of this month.

[PATCH 1/9] ARM: cpuidle: remove useless declaration

[Daniel Lezcano]

On 04/18/2013 04:13 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 02:23:23PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> On 04/03/2013 02:15 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>> The noop functions code is not necessary because the header file is
>>> included in files which are compiled when CONFIG_CPU_IDLE is on.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
>>
>> I have been involved in the development of this file. I know Rob is no
>> longer working on this neither monitoring the code.
>>
>> Russell are you ok with this patch ? Rafael needs your ack to take this
>> patch into its tree.
> 
> I don't know - the description doesn't make it clear.  Surely, what you
> checked was that this file is _not_ included in any file which is built
> when CONFIG_CPU_IDLE is disabled.  In other words, when CONFIG_CPU_IDLE
> is not defined, arm_cpuidle_simple_enter() is never referenced.
> 
> If that is the case, then it's just that the patch description is the
> opposite of what it should be for this patch - and then the patch and
> description match and I don't see any reason to say no to it.
> 
> Then comes the issue of who takes the patch.  It looks like Rafael
> would like me to.

Actually Rafael was willing to take the patch if you ack it.


-- 
 <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org ? Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog

[PATCH 1/9] ARM: cpuidle: remove useless declaration

[Russell King - ARM Linux]

On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 04:31:43PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 04/18/2013 04:13 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 02:23:23PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> >> On 04/03/2013 02:15 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> >>> The noop functions code is not necessary because the header file is
> >>> included in files which are compiled when CONFIG_CPU_IDLE is on.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
> >>
> >> I have been involved in the development of this file. I know Rob is no
> >> longer working on this neither monitoring the code.
> >>
> >> Russell are you ok with this patch ? Rafael needs your ack to take this
> >> patch into its tree.
> > 
> > I don't know - the description doesn't make it clear.  Surely, what you
> > checked was that this file is _not_ included in any file which is built
> > when CONFIG_CPU_IDLE is disabled.  In other words, when CONFIG_CPU_IDLE
> > is not defined, arm_cpuidle_simple_enter() is never referenced.
> > 
> > If that is the case, then it's just that the patch description is the
> > opposite of what it should be for this patch - and then the patch and
> > description match and I don't see any reason to say no to it.
> > 
> > Then comes the issue of who takes the patch.  It looks like Rafael
> > would like me to.
> 
> Actually Rafael was willing to take the patch if you ack it.

Well, I want to see a proper description on the patch which describes
what it _is_ doing before I ack it.  The existing description is just
plain confusing.

[PATCH 1/9] ARM: cpuidle: remove useless declaration

[Daniel Lezcano]

On 04/18/2013 05:42 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 04:31:43PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> On 04/18/2013 04:13 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 02:23:23PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>>> On 04/03/2013 02:15 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>>>> The noop functions code is not necessary because the header file is
>>>>> included in files which are compiled when CONFIG_CPU_IDLE is on.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
>>>>
>>>> I have been involved in the development of this file. I know Rob is no
>>>> longer working on this neither monitoring the code.
>>>>
>>>> Russell are you ok with this patch ? Rafael needs your ack to take this
>>>> patch into its tree.
>>>
>>> I don't know - the description doesn't make it clear.  Surely, what you
>>> checked was that this file is _not_ included in any file which is built
>>> when CONFIG_CPU_IDLE is disabled.  In other words, when CONFIG_CPU_IDLE
>>> is not defined, arm_cpuidle_simple_enter() is never referenced.
>>>
>>> If that is the case, then it's just that the patch description is the
>>> opposite of what it should be for this patch - and then the patch and
>>> description match and I don't see any reason to say no to it.
>>>
>>> Then comes the issue of who takes the patch.  It looks like Rafael
>>> would like me to.
>>
>> Actually Rafael was willing to take the patch if you ack it.
> 
> Well, I want to see a proper description on the patch which describes
> what it _is_ doing before I ack it.  The existing description is just
> plain confusing.

Ok, I will resend.

Thanks
  -- Daniel


-- 
 <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org ? Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog

[PATCH 1/9] ARM: cpuidle: remove useless declaration

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Wednesday, April 03, 2013 02:15:14 PM Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> The noop functions code is not necessary because the header file is
> included in files which are compiled when CONFIG_CPU_IDLE is on.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>

I need an ACK for this one.

Thanks,
Rafael


> ---
>  arch/arm/include/asm/cpuidle.h |    7 +------
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/cpuidle.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/cpuidle.h
> index 2fca60a..7367787 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/cpuidle.h
> +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/cpuidle.h
> @@ -1,13 +1,8 @@
>  #ifndef __ASM_ARM_CPUIDLE_H
>  #define __ASM_ARM_CPUIDLE_H
>  
> -#ifdef CONFIG_CPU_IDLE
>  extern int arm_cpuidle_simple_enter(struct cpuidle_device *dev,
> -		struct cpuidle_driver *drv, int index);
> -#else
> -static inline int arm_cpuidle_simple_enter(struct cpuidle_device *dev,
> -		struct cpuidle_driver *drv, int index) { return -ENODEV; }
> -#endif
> +				    struct cpuidle_driver *drv, int index);
>  
>  /* Common ARM WFI state */
>  #define ARM_CPUIDLE_WFI_STATE_PWR(p) {\
> 
-- 
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.

[PATCH 1/9] ARM: cpuidle: remove useless declaration

[Daniel Lezcano]

The noop functions code is not necessary because the header file is
included in files which are compiled when CONFIG_CPU_IDLE is on.

Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
---
 arch/arm/include/asm/cpuidle.h |    7 +------
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/cpuidle.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/cpuidle.h
index 2fca60a..7367787 100644
--- a/arch/arm/include/asm/cpuidle.h
+++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/cpuidle.h
@@ -1,13 +1,8 @@
 #ifndef __ASM_ARM_CPUIDLE_H
 #define __ASM_ARM_CPUIDLE_H
 
-#ifdef CONFIG_CPU_IDLE
 extern int arm_cpuidle_simple_enter(struct cpuidle_device *dev,
-		struct cpuidle_driver *drv, int index);
-#else
-static inline int arm_cpuidle_simple_enter(struct cpuidle_device *dev,
-		struct cpuidle_driver *drv, int index) { return -ENODEV; }
-#endif
+				    struct cpuidle_driver *drv, int index);
 
 /* Common ARM WFI state */
 #define ARM_CPUIDLE_WFI_STATE_PWR(p) {\
-- 
1.7.9.5

[PATCH 1/9] ARM: cpuidle: remove useless declaration

[Santosh Shilimkar]

On Friday 29 March 2013 04:01 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> The noop functions code is not necessary because the header file is
> included in files which are compiled when CONFIG_CPU_IDLE is on.
> 
Well the inline function was to avoid buid breaks when
!CONFIG_CPU_IDLE.
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
> ---
Function without definition will break the build, No? Just
declaration isn't won't help to get the build through.

Ofcourse if all idle drivers are build *only when*
CONFIG_CPU_IDLE=y, then the patch is should
be fine.

Regards,
Santosh

[PATCH 1/9] ARM: cpuidle: remove useless declaration

[Daniel Lezcano]

On 03/29/2013 12:40 PM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
> On Friday 29 March 2013 04:01 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> The noop functions code is not necessary because the header file is
>> included in files which are compiled when CONFIG_CPU_IDLE is on.
>>
> Well the inline function was to avoid buid breaks when
> !CONFIG_CPU_IDLE.
>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
>> ---
> Function without definition will break the build, No? Just
> declaration isn't won't help to get the build through.
> 
> Ofcourse if all idle drivers are build *only when*
> CONFIG_CPU_IDLE=y, then the patch is should
> be fine.

Yes, it is case AFAICT.


-- 
 <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org ? Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog