On Thursday, February 14, 2013 07:34:56 AM Dirk Brandewie wrote: > 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. Right, I forgot about that and recalled it just a minute after sending that message. > 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. But then we need to allow the user to choose acpi_cpufreq anyway if it's preferred whatever the reason. 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
