Hi Sudeep, On 9 July 2015 at 05:06, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@xxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi, > > On 08/07/15 21:28, Ashwin Chaugule 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: >> 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? >> > > Correct, I will handle it as a prerequisite for introducing _LPI > support. I had posted an RFC long back, will revive those patches and > repost them soon. > > It's better to enable ACPI_PROCESSOR on ARM64 only after we have all > these dependencies resolved. Until then we need to carry some patches > locally for testing. With Rafaels latest suggestion of adding ACPI_PROCESSOR_IDLE, we dont need to wait until all dependencies are resolved to enable acpi_processor on ARM64. CPPC patchwork has been up for review for quite a long time and has been validated on hardware. There is no reason for it to be blocked until LPI is upstream ready. 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
