From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752027AbaEBNfX (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 May 2014 09:35:23 -0400 Received: from mail-wg0-f41.google.com ([74.125.82.41]:48941 "EHLO mail-wg0-f41.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751505AbaEBNfW (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 May 2014 09:35:22 -0400 Message-ID: <53639F1B.5080000@linaro.org> Date: Fri, 02 May 2014 15:35:23 +0200 From: Daniel Lezcano User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" CC: peterz@infradead.org, mingo@elte.hu, amit.kucheria@linaro.org, linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 1/2] sched: idle: Encapsulate the code to compile it out References: <1398859263-7632-1-git-send-email-daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> <2783362.8r7SvVhudq@vostro.rjw.lan> <53635CCB.9090301@linaro.org> <2782801.UzoMhgfu56@vostro.rjw.lan> In-Reply-To: <2782801.UzoMhgfu56@vostro.rjw.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 05/02/2014 02:09 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Friday, May 02, 2014 10:52:27 AM Daniel Lezcano wrote: >> On 05/01/2014 12:47 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>> On Wednesday, April 30, 2014 02:01:02 PM Daniel Lezcano wrote: >>>> Encapsulate the large portion of cpuidle_idle_call inside another >>>> function so when CONFIG_CPU_IDLE=n, the code will be compiled out. >>>> Also that is benefitial for the clarity of the code as it removes >>>> a nested indentation level. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano >>> >>> Well, this conflicts with >>> >>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/4071541/ >>> >>> which you haven't commented on and I still want cpuidle_select() to be able to >>> return negative values because of >>> >>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/4089631/ >>> >>> (and I have one more patch on top of these two that requires this). >>> >>> Any ideas how to resolve that? >> >> I don't think we have a big conflict. If Peter takes your patches before >> than mines then I will refresh and resend them. > > Actually, I was planning the merge them myself, because they are more cpuidle > than the scheduler, but either way would be fine. Well I have some patches for the scheduler which will need these modifications. Is it possible to merge them throw a common branch to be shared between sched and pm ? >> I am open to any other suggestion. > > Please see the other message I've just sent. :-) > -- Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog