On Monday, January 20, 2014 10:08:41 PM Hanjun Guo wrote:
> On 2014年01月18日 21:47, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 18, 2014 11:52:18 AM Hanjun Guo wrote:
> >> On 2014-1-18 11:45, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> >>> On 2014-1-17 20:06, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> >>>> On 17/01/14 02:03, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> >>>>> Move idle_boot_override out of the arch directory to be a single enum
> >>>>> including both platforms values, this will make it rather easier to
> >>>>> avoid ifdefs around which definitions are for which processor in
> >>>>> generally used ACPI code.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> IDLE_FORCE_MWAIT for IA64 is not used anywhere, so romove it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> No functional change in this patch.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Suggested-by: Alan <gnomes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>> ---
> >> [...]
> >>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/cpu.h b/include/linux/cpu.h
> >>>>> index 03e235ad..e324561 100644
> >>>>> --- a/include/linux/cpu.h
> >>>>> +++ b/include/linux/cpu.h
> >>>>> @@ -220,6 +220,14 @@ void cpu_idle(void);
> >>>>>
> >>>>> void cpu_idle_poll_ctrl(bool enable);
> >>>>>
> >>>>> +enum idle_boot_override {
> >>>>> + IDLE_NO_OVERRIDE = 0,
> >>>>> + IDLE_HALT,
> >>>>> + IDLE_NOMWAIT,
> >>>>> + IDLE_POLL,
> >>>>> + IDLE_POWERSAVE_OFF
> >>>>> +};
> >>>>> +
> >>>> I do understand the idea behind this change, but IMO HALT and MWAIT are x86
> >>>> specific and may not make sense for other architectures.
> >>> yes, this is the strange part, the value is arch-dependent.
> >>>
> >>>> It will also require every architecture using ACPI to export
> >>>> boot_option_idle_override which may not be really required.
> >>> so, how about forget this patch and move boot_option_idle_override
> >>> related code into arch directory such as arch/x86/acpi/boot.c for
> >>> x86?
> >> The general idea is that we can move all the arch-dependent codes
> >> in ACPI driver to arch directory, then make codes in drivers/acpi/
> >> arch independent.
> > Well, MWAIT is arch-dependent, so I'm not sure how IDLE_NOMWAIT fits into
> > include/linux/cpu.h?
>
> So you will not happy with this patch and should find another solution?
No, I'm not happy with it.
If you want to move that to an arch-agnostic header, the symbol names cannot
be arch-dependent any more.
Thanks!
--
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
--
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
