On Thursday, February 14, 2013 09:38:21 AM Viresh Kumar wrote: > On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 10:08 PM, Dirk Brandewie > <dirk.brandewie@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > For the case where both are built-in the load order works my driver uses > > device_initcall() and acpi_cpufreq uses late_initcall(). > > > > For the case where both are a module (which I was sure I tested) you are > > right > > I will have to do something. > > > > For now I propose to make my driver built-in only while I sort out the right > > solution for the module build. Does this seem reasonable to everyone? > > Of-course i am missing something here. Why would anybody want to insert > acpi-cpufreq module when the system supports the pstate driver. > > In case they are mutually exclusive, then we can have something like > depends on !ACPI-DRIVER in the kconfig option of pstate driver. Yes. Or the other way around (i.e. make acpi_cpufreq depend on !X86_INTEL_PSTATE). Thanks, Rafael -- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cpufreq" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
