* Torsten Duwe <duwe@xxxxxx> [2009-12-04 23:20:00]: > On Wednesday 02 December 2009, Arun R Bharadwaj wrote: > > * Arun R Bharadwaj <arun@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [2009-12-02 15:24:27]: > > > > This patch cleans up drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c > > Earlier cpuidle assumed pm_idle as the default idle loop. Break that > > assumption and make it more generic. > > Is there a problem with the old pm_idle? Couldn't it be integrated more > transparently, instead of replacing it this intrusively? > Hi Torsten, Peter objected to the idea of integrating this with the old pm_idle because it has already caused a lot of problems on x86 and we wouldn't want to be doing the same mistake on POWER. The discussion related to that could be found here http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/8/26/233 > > --- linux.trees.git.orig/include/linux/cpuidle.h > > +++ linux.trees.git/include/linux/cpuidle.h > > @@ -41,7 +41,7 @@ struct cpuidle_state { > > unsigned long long usage; > > unsigned long long time; /* in US */ > > > > - int (*enter) (struct cpuidle_device *dev, > > + void (*enter) (struct cpuidle_device *dev, > > struct cpuidle_state *state); > > }; > > While it may be a good idea to move the residency calculation to one central > place, at least in theory a cpuidle_state->enter() function could have a > better method to determine its value. > This would mean a lot of code replication, which Pavel pointed out in the previous iteration. So I moved the residency calculation to a central place. > Either way you're implicitly introducing an API change here, and you're at > least missing two functions on ARM and SuperH, respectively. Could you > separate this API change out, and not take it for granted in the other > patches? > > Torsten -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
