On 02/14/2013 04:21 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
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).
The issue is that acpi-cpufreq still needs to be available for Intel processors
before SandyBridge and for other x86 compatible processors we can't make
intel_pstate and acpi-cpufreq mutually exclusive.
Having intel_pstate built-in solves the issue without the need to patch
acpi-cpufreq. I believe that most distros build the scaling drivers in
so the distro/user will make the explicit decision to use intel_pstate.
Thanks,
Rafael
--
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
