From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Trinabh Gupta Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH V4 3/5] cpuidle: default idle driver for x86 Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 15:01:14 +0530 Message-ID: <4D89BDE2.9040606@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <20110322123208.28725.30945.stgit@tringupt.in.ibm.com> <20110322123244.28725.32435.stgit@tringupt.in.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Len Brown Cc: arjan@linux.intel.com, peterz@infradead.org, suresh.b.siddha@intel.com, benh@kernel.crashing.org, venki@google.com, ak@linux.intel.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, sfr@canb.auug.org.au, xen-devel@lists.xensource.com List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 03/23/2011 08:43 AM, Len Brown wrote: > Why is this patch a step forward? Hi Len, I have basically moved the code for arch default and mwait idle from arch/x86/kernel/process.c to a driver. This was suggested by Venki (https://lkml.org/lkml/2010/10/19/460) as part of pm_idle cleanup and direct call of cpuidle_idle_call(). There is not much new code here. > >> +obj-$(CONFIG_X86) += default_driver.o > > BTW, that's a pretty generic name for an x86 specific idle driver... > > I think that on builds that support intel_idle and acpi_idle, > everything in this file will be unused, unless somebody uses some > debugging cmdline params that should have been deleted ages ago. Yes, I agree that the name has to be x86 specific. I think the routines would be used for pre-nehalem architectures that use arch default or mwait. Thanks, -Trinabh > > thanks, > Len Brown, Intel Open Source Technology Center > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ >