On Thursday, July 09, 2015 01:29:21 AM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > 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. And do that in a separate patch with a clear changelog explaining why you're doing it. 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
