On 2014-1-21 7:34, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> 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.
Ok, will find another solution for that, thanks for your comments :)
Hanjun
--
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
