On 11/17/2011 05:36 PM, Thomas Renninger wrote:
> Only unregister acpi_idle driver if acpi_idle driver got
> registered.
>
> Also add a static acpi_idle_active variable for easy and nicer
> checking whether acpi_idle_driver is active (as suggested by
> Bjorn).
>
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Renninger <trenn@xxxxxxx>
> CC: Len Brown <lenb@xxxxxxxxxx>
> CC: linux-acpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> CC: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c | 11 +++++++----
> 1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c b/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c
> index 3a4fc0c..790623f 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c
> @@ -110,6 +110,7 @@ static struct cpuidle_driver acpi_idle_driver = {
> .name = "acpi_idle",
> .owner = THIS_MODULE,
> };
> +static int acpi_idle_active;
>
> #define INSTALL_NOTIFY_HANDLER 1
> #define UNINSTALL_NOTIFY_HANDLER 2
> @@ -508,8 +509,7 @@ static int __cpuinit acpi_processor_add(struct acpi_device *device)
> acpi_processor_get_throttling_info(pr);
> acpi_processor_get_limit_info(pr);
>
> -
> - if (cpuidle_get_driver() == &acpi_idle_driver)
> + if (acpi_idle_active)
> acpi_processor_power_init(pr, device);
I think the old cold reads better than the new code,
since I don't have to guess what "acpi_idle_active" means...
Perhaps you can use the existing mechanism where
it is missing to guard the unregister and re-fresh?
thanks,
-Len
--
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
