On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 03:21:17PM +0100, Kumar Gala wrote: [...] > > Looking beyond this set of patches, I can foresee that you won't care > > about the generic arm64 cpuidle driver either, or more precisely the > > separation between cpuidle subsystem+driver and the SoC-specific > > back-end (cpu_operations). > > That's probably true for what I guess are a number of reasons. I'm guessing the arm64 cpuidle driver expects PSCI. Wrap lines sensibly please. The arm64 cpuidle driver, that is now arm generic cpuidle driver does not expect anything apart from an enable-method (and you pulled part of its back-end implementation for arm32 Qualcomm platforms, FYI). It took years to consolidate it and the main reason was the lack of standard interfaces for power down/up sequences that this patchset of yours wants to promote in arm64 world. The lack of standard power interfaces may not have been an issue for you, who cares about Qualcomm code, it has been a sore issue for people trying to generalize things across ARM platforms in the kernel, which is the only sensible way forward. PSCI is a standard interface (and Qualcomm are already contributing to it, for the records) that can certainly be extended, and you are welcome to contribute to it, but certainly not ignored. Thanks, Lorenzo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
