From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Russell King - ARM Linux Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/9] ARM: cpuidle: remove useless declaration Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 16:42:36 +0100 Message-ID: <20130418154236.GY14496@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <1364991322-20585-1-git-send-email-daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> <515C1F3B.5040008@linaro.org> <20130418141359.GT14496@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <517003CF.5090106@linaro.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from caramon.arm.linux.org.uk ([78.32.30.218]:34188 "EHLO caramon.arm.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S967558Ab3DRPof (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Apr 2013 11:44:35 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <517003CF.5090106@linaro.org> Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org To: Daniel Lezcano Cc: deepthi@linux.vnet.ibm.com, linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org, swarren@wwwdotorg.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, patches@linaro.org, nsekhar@ti.com, rjw@sisk.pl, rnayak@ti.com, josephl@nvidia.com, linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org, horms+renesas@verge.net.au, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, lenb@kernel.org 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 > >> > >> 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.