On Wednesday, July 08, 2015 05:57:11 PM Ashwin Chaugule wrote: > 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. I mean ia64 is a non-x86 architecture using ACPI. It very well may be doing things that you want to be doing. It looks like the only reason you want ACPI_CST for is to avoid building processor_idle.c on ARM64. Then add something like this to the ACPI Kconfig: config ACPI_PROCESSOR_IDLE def_bool Y depends on X86 || IA64 and don't make it user-selectable *and* under the ACPI_PROCESSOR config do select CPU_IDLE if ACPI_PROCESSOR_IDLE Then, make processor_idle.c conditional on ACPI_PROCESSOR_IDLE. That should do the trick and it may be changed by the LPI series as needed. Also, I don't see a reason why the ACPI_PSS option should be user-selectable. I'd call it ACPI_CPU_FREQ_PSS, make it depend on CPU_FREQ and make architectures select it (or not) as appropriate. Thanks, 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
