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

[Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>]

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-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.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