From: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>
Cc: patches@linaro.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org, Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][V2] cpuidle: simplify multiple driver support
Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2013 15:00:32 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <51AF3670.6040601@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <11636841.b3MnnSDuMT@vostro.rjw.lan>
On 06/05/2013 03:03 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 05, 2013 10:19:05 AM Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> On 05/28/2013 11:28 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, May 28, 2013 11:08:13 PM Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>>> On 05/22/2013 03:05 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>>>> Commit bf4d1b5ddb78f86078ac6ae0415802d5f0c68f92 brought the multiple driver
>>>>> support. The code added a couple of new API to register the driver per cpu.
>>>>> That led to some code complexity to handle the kernel config options when
>>>>> the multiple driver support is enabled or not, which is not really necessary.
>>>>> The code has to be compatible when the multiple driver support is not enabled,
>>>>> and the multiple driver support has to be compatible with the old api.
>>>>>
>>>>> This patch removes this API, which is not yet used by any driver but needed
>>>>> for the HMP cpuidle drivers which will come soon, and replaces its usage
>>>>> by a cpumask pointer in the cpuidle driver structure telling what cpus are
>>>>> handled by the driver. That let the API cpuidle_[un]register_driver to be used
>>>>> for the multipled driver support and also the cpuidle_[un]register functions,
>>>>> added recently in the cpuidle framework.
>>>>>
>>>>> The current code, a bit poor in comments, has been commented and simplified.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>
>>>>> [V2]:
>>>>> - fixed bad refcount check
>>>>> - inverted clockevent notify off order at unregister time
>>>> Hi Rafael,
>>>>
>>>> could you consider this patch for merging ? I took into account
>>>> Francesco's comments.
>>> I'm waiting for Len to have a look at it which may take a few days more.
>>
>> Ok, is it possible to queue the patch for 3.11 now ?
>
> Actually, can you please separate adding kerneldoc comments from functional
> changes? That'd make the patch(es) easier to grasp.
Sure.
--
<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
prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-06-05 13:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-05-22 13:05 [PATCH][V2] cpuidle: simplify multiple driver support Daniel Lezcano
2013-05-28 21:08 ` Daniel Lezcano
2013-05-28 21:28 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2013-06-05 8:19 ` Daniel Lezcano
2013-06-05 13:03 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2013-06-05 13:00 ` Daniel Lezcano [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=51AF3670.6040601@linaro.org \
--to=daniel.lezcano@linaro.org \
--cc=lenb@kernel.org \
--cc=linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=patches@linaro.org \
--cc=rjw@sisk.pl \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).