On 8 July 2015 at 18:21, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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: >> >> >> >> 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? I dont have access, but I'm really not changing anything functionally. Thanks, 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
