From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Abhishek Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] cpuidle : auto-promotion for cpuidle states Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2019 15:06:47 +0530 Message-ID: References: <20190405091647.4169-1-huntbag@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20190405091647.4169-2-huntbag@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <87lg0kwp3t.fsf@dja-thinkpad.axtens.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <87lg0kwp3t.fsf@dja-thinkpad.axtens.net> Content-Language: en-US Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Daniel Axtens , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org Cc: rjw@rjwysocki.net, daniel.lezcano@linaro.org, mpe@ellerman.id.au, ego@linux.vnet.ibm.com List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org Hi Daniel, On 04/08/2019 07:55 PM, Daniel Axtens wrote: > Hi, > > Sorry, just realised another thing I wanted to ask: > >> @@ -442,6 +442,26 @@ static int menu_select(struct cpuidle_driver *drv, struct cpuidle_device *dev, >> } >> } >> >> >> +#ifdef CPUIDLE_FLAG_AUTO_PROMOTION > Why is this based on CPUIDLE_FLAG_ rather than CONFIG_CPU_IDLE_? Won't > this always be true, given that the flag is defined regardless of the > config option in the header? Yeah, You are right. This should have been CONFIG_CPU_IDLE_AUTO_PROMOTION. --Abhishek From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 526D4C10F0E for ; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 09:37:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 293F52084C for ; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 09:37:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726770AbfDIJhZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Apr 2019 05:37:25 -0400 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:37880 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726741AbfDIJhZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Apr 2019 05:37:25 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098393.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x399YFn9134366 for ; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 05:37:24 -0400 Received: from e06smtp05.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp05.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.101]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2rrpve5qtb-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Tue, 09 Apr 2019 05:37:09 -0400 Received: from localhost by e06smtp05.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 10:36:53 +0100 Received: from b06cxnps4076.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (9.149.109.198) by e06smtp05.uk.ibm.com (192.168.101.135) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256) Tue, 9 Apr 2019 10:36:50 +0100 Received: from b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.160]) by b06cxnps4076.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id x399anDR43974692 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 9 Apr 2019 09:36:49 GMT Received: from b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67C96A405B; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 09:36:49 +0000 (GMT) Received: from b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC29DA4054; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 09:36:47 +0000 (GMT) Received: from oc0383214508.ibm.com (unknown [9.124.35.65]) by b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 09:36:47 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] cpuidle : auto-promotion for cpuidle states To: Daniel Axtens , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org Cc: rjw@rjwysocki.net, daniel.lezcano@linaro.org, mpe@ellerman.id.au, ego@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <20190405091647.4169-1-huntbag@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20190405091647.4169-2-huntbag@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <87lg0kwp3t.fsf@dja-thinkpad.axtens.net> From: Abhishek Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2019 15:06:47 +0530 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87lg0kwp3t.fsf@dja-thinkpad.axtens.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-US X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 19040909-0020-0000-0000-0000032DD817 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 19040909-0021-0000-0000-0000217FFD89 Message-Id: X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2019-04-09_03:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=729 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1904090063 Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20190409093647.-DS3YkDGkvaTnmRca2X5pyO6OFNYpU3LABTzXeQ1pEQ@z> Hi Daniel, On 04/08/2019 07:55 PM, Daniel Axtens wrote: > Hi, > > Sorry, just realised another thing I wanted to ask: > >> @@ -442,6 +442,26 @@ static int menu_select(struct cpuidle_driver *drv, struct cpuidle_device *dev, >> } >> } >> >> >> +#ifdef CPUIDLE_FLAG_AUTO_PROMOTION > Why is this based on CPUIDLE_FLAG_ rather than CONFIG_CPU_IDLE_? Won't > this always be true, given that the flag is defined regardless of the > config option in the header? Yeah, You are right. This should have been CONFIG_CPU_IDLE_AUTO_PROMOTION. --Abhishek