On Fri, 2016-08-12 at 10:13 +0100, Alexey Klimov wrote:
> >
> (adding Sudeep and Prashanth in c/c)
>
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 05:17:22PM -0700, Srinivas Pandruvada wrote:
[...]
> > result = acpi_cppc_processor_probe(pr);
> > - if (result)
> > + if (result) {
> > +#ifndef CONFIG_ACPI_CPU_FREQ_PSS
> > return -ENODEV;
> > +#endif
> > + }
> >
> > if (!cpuidle_get_driver() || cpuidle_get_driver() ==
> > &acpi_idle_driver)
> > acpi_processor_power_init(pr);
> If PSS is not defined and kernel fails to probe CPPC then why we
> should not
> execute acpi_processor_power_init()?
Did I change the current behavior? Currently when
acpi_cppc_processor_probe() fails, then -ENODEV is returned.
Thanks,
Srinivas
>
> Best regards,
> Alexey
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pm"
> in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
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
