From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from e28smtp05.in.ibm.com (e28smtp05.in.ibm.com [122.248.162.5]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "e28smtp05.in.ibm.com", Issuer "Equifax" (verified OK)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 06C59B6F0C for ; Mon, 7 Dec 2009 21:56:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from d28relay03.in.ibm.com (d28relay03.in.ibm.com [9.184.220.60]) by e28smtp05.in.ibm.com (8.14.3/8.13.1) with ESMTP id nB7AuJQN026872 for ; Mon, 7 Dec 2009 16:26:19 +0530 Received: from d28av01.in.ibm.com (d28av01.in.ibm.com [9.184.220.63]) by d28relay03.in.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id nB7AuJW52625660 for ; Mon, 7 Dec 2009 16:26:19 +0530 Received: from d28av01.in.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d28av01.in.ibm.com (8.14.3/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id nB7AuIAp021493 for ; Mon, 7 Dec 2009 16:26:18 +0530 Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 16:26:16 +0530 From: Arun R Bharadwaj To: Torsten Duwe Subject: Re: [v10 PATCH 2/9]: cpuidle: cleanup drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c Message-ID: <20091207105616.GC21290@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <20091202095427.GA27251@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <200912042320.01320.duwe@lst.de> <20091206051928.GA18300@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <200912071117.58163.duwe@lst.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 In-Reply-To: <200912071117.58163.duwe@lst.de> Cc: Arun Bharadwaj , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Peter Zijlstra , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Reply-To: arun@linux.vnet.ibm.com List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , * Torsten Duwe [2009-12-07 11:17:57]: > On Sunday 06 December 2009, Arun R Bharadwaj wrote: > > > Peter objected to the idea of integrating this with the old pm_idle > > because it has already caused a lot of problems on x86 and we wouldn't > > want to be doing the same mistake on POWER. The discussion related to > > that could be found here http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/8/26/233 > > And BenH has sketched how it should be done on ppc, in that thread: > http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/8/26/624 AFAIS this comment is still valid for v10. > > Not only I would like to understand what is the conceptual idea behind the > other changes. Nothing wrong with cleanups, but there's got to be a purpose > and benefits. > > Torsten The reason for the cleanups is that we should have just one idle function manager instead of having one for each arch, which needs to be exported and hence really ugly. So thats why we decided to do away with pm_idle and make cpuidle as _the_ idle function manager. So in case of POWER, we have the ppc_md.power_save which is the pm_idle equivalent. We discussed that in this thread http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/9/2/20 thanks arun