Hello, On 6 May 2015 at 10:31, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@xxxxxxx> wrote: > Similar to the idle, thermal and throttling libraries, always compile > the perflib if CONFIG_ACPI_PROCESSOR is enabled. This not only makes > perflib alligned with other libraries but also helps in some sanity > testing of these ACPI methods even when a particular feature is not > enabled in the kernel configuration. > > Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@xxxxxxx> > --- > drivers/acpi/Makefile | 2 +- > include/acpi/processor.h | 29 ----------------------------- > include/linux/cpufreq.h | 4 ++++ > 3 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/Makefile b/drivers/acpi/Makefile > index 8a063e276530..33aef9d8b260 100644 > --- a/drivers/acpi/Makefile > +++ b/drivers/acpi/Makefile > @@ -84,7 +84,7 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_ACPI_BGRT) += bgrt.o > # processor has its own "processor." module_param namespace > processor-y := processor_driver.o processor_throttling.o > processor-y += processor_idle.o processor_thermal.o > -processor-$(CONFIG_CPU_FREQ) += processor_perflib.o > +processor-y += processor_perflib.o I'd prefer that we create a separate kconfig option for this. (perhaps even default it to 'y'). This library is quite specific to a certain type of CPU performance management methods (includes _PSS and friends) which are superseded by CPPC. The OS is not expected to support both at runtime, so by keeping this a config option, we can then disable it at compile time when CPPC is enabled. We could couple processor_throttling, thermal and perflib under this config option (CONFIG_PSS ?) since they're all under the same CPU performance management umbrella. Thoughts? Regards, Ashwin. -- 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
