On 07/12/2012 11:44 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Thursday, July 12, 2012, Daniel Lezcano wrote: >> Remove the index field. It could be given without adding extra >> information in the cx structure. >> >> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@xxxxxxxxxx> > > I'm not sure about this one. > > The code seems to be more straightforward without it, actually. > > Why exactly do you need to remove the field? Actually, I am trying to cleaning up the different structure in the acpi and clearly separate what is for cpuidle and what is for acpi. I noticed there are some duplicated informations like the index and what is described in the cx state. I am trying to consolidate the code of the cpuidle drivers across the different platform and I have to admit the processor_idle is the most complicated as the cpuidle code is spreaded across different files (processor_driver.c, processor.h, arch/x86/kernel/acpi/cstate.c, etc ...). So these small patches are to litlle by little separate these two subsystems (acpi and cpuidle) and have everything related to cpuidle into the processor_idle file. For this patch, it is right it seems to introduce more complexity but the objective is to consolidate the code. I hope by cleaning the different structures we will gain in readability. -- <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook | <http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter | <http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog -- 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
