From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: daniel.lezcano@linaro.org (Daniel Lezcano)
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 15:12:43 +0200
Subject: [PATCHv2 12/17] cpuidle: mvebu: make the cpuidle driver capable
 of handling multiple SoCs
In-Reply-To: <20140721143813.6028b6ed@free-electrons.com>
References: <1404913221-17343-1-git-send-email-thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>	<52019695.n2AjkGEsJ7@wuerfel>	<20140721133534.3415e425@free-electrons.com>	<5251405.VTrfDi1rj5@wuerfel>	<20140721140917.16e71558@free-electrons.com>	<53CD08CF.6080900@linaro.org>
 <20140721143813.6028b6ed@free-electrons.com>
Message-ID: <53CD11CB.7020300@linaro.org>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On 07/21/2014 02:38 PM, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> Dear Daniel Lezcano,
>
> On Mon, 21 Jul 2014 14:34:23 +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>
>> So there are three solutions:
>>
>> 1. Pass the flag through the platform data, I am not really in favor of
>> that as mentioned above
>
> That's what is already implemented.

Yes, that was the point :)

>> 2. Use the compatible string like the cpuidle-big-little.c driver, but
>> Arnd is not in favor of that
>>
>> 3. Register 3 platform drivers, in cpuidle-mvebu-v7.c, and let the
>> registering of the cpuidle's platform device to enable the right one
>
> I'm fine with doing (3). Daniel, Arnd, let me know if that's ok for
> you, and I'll respin the patch series accordingly.

Ok for me.

Thanks Thomas

   -- 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