On Wednesday, July 08, 2015 05:46:45 PM Ashwin Chaugule wrote: > On 8 July 2015 at 16:46, Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Ashwin, > > Hi, > > > On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 10:28 PM, Ashwin Chaugule > > <ashwin.chaugule@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On 8 July 2015 at 16:05, Ashwin Chaugule <ashwin.chaugule@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> On 8 July 2015 at 15:55, Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>> Hi Ashwin, > >>>> > >>>> On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 9:16 PM, Ashwin Chaugule > >>>> <ashwin.chaugule@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>>> Hi Rafael, > >>>>> > > > > [cut] > > > >>>> > >>>> Also I'm still unsure what the connection between _CST and CPPC is. > >>>> > >>> > >>> There isnt. But I'm missing where I've implied the dependency? > >> > >> Perhaps the confusion is coming from the introduction of ACPI_CST in > >> this file. I could leave it as it is and just separate out the > >> ACPI_PSS bits. But I figured, while I'm at it, I'd introduce ACPI_CST, > >> since we know the LPI stuff is coming up soon as a CST alternative > >> anyway. So if you prefer, I can drop the CST bits and maybe Sudeep can > >> address that as part of his LPI patchset? > > > > Yes, please. That would be much less confusing. > > Deja Vu. :) > > When I let processor_driver and processor_idle compile on ARM64, I get > a bunch of errors because processor_idle.c contains a lot of X86 > specific defines. That is why I'd created the ACPI_CST option which > we'd enable only on X86. > > I'm not entirely sure what these enums and functions should default > to, or what they should be on ARM specifically. Given that on ARM64 > we're likely to use LPI as against CST, it seems the original approach > is better. Thoughts? Before we go anywhere deeper, have you checked what happens on ia64? Rafael -- 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
