Re: [patch 08/34] arm: Use generic idle loop

Russell King - ARM Linux
2013-04-08T21:47:42Z

On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 03:02:39PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Mar 2013, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 12:31:20PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > On Fri, 22 Mar 2013, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Thomas,
> > > >
> > > > Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> writes:
> > > >
> > > > > Use the generic idle loop and replace enable/disable_hlt with the
> > > > > respective core functions.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
> > > > > Cc: Russell King <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>
> > > >
> > > > I gave patches 1-5 + this a quick spin on ARM (specifially some OMAP3 and
> > > > OMAP4 platforms, with and without CPUidle enabled.)
> > > >
> > > > The OMAP stuff needed a couple minor compile fixes (below), but
> > > > otherwise it passes the quick "seems to work" test.
> > >
> > > Yeah, that's needed for the other arch/arm conversions as well.
> >
> > So, the only patch I got was this one, which is useless to test on its
> > own...
>
> I'm testing V2 now and will post an git URL with a testing branch
> later tonight.

So, how can I review these changes when all there is is a git URL, and
I *do* not want to pull them into my tree without first looking at the
patches, possibly reviewing them and *replying* with the patch inline?

I see you've now added this stuff to -tip. I guess ARM doesn't matter
to you at all. I guess having ARM people review the core changes doesn't
matter either.

Well, I guess if it's broken, we'll just have to fix it up after the
merge window.

One rule for x86, a different one for ARM. Let x86 maintainers moan
about ARM people, but don't let ARM people moan about x86 maintainers.
Yes, sure, right, I get it.

So, explicitly, my concern is this replacement of enable_hlt()/disable_hlt()
with this cpu_idle_poll_ctrl(), and whether this interface is still
counted - so that it's possible to call disable_hlt() to _permanently_
disable any hlt-based idle loop.

If that's not possible with your revised interface, you have just broken
some ARM platforms. I can only guess... because you never copied your
entire patch set to me nor to the ARM lists.