On Thu, 27 May 2010 07:14:46 -0700 Kevin Hilman <khilman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Len Brown <lenb@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > From: Len Brown <len.brown@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > This EXPERIMENTAL driver supersedes acpi_idle > > on modern Intel processors. (Nehalem and Atom Processors). > > > > For CONFIG_INTEL_IDLE=y, intel_idle probes before acpi_idle, > > no matter if CONFIG_ACPI_PROCESSOR=y or =m. > > > > Boot with "intel_idle.max_cstate=0" to disable the driver > > and to fall back on ACPI. > > > > CONFIG_INTEL_IDLE=m is not recommended unless the system > > has a method to guarantee intel_idle loads before ACPI's > > processor_idle. > > > > This driver does not yet know about cpu online/offline > > and thus will not yet play well with cpu-hotplug. > > > > Signed-off-by: Len Brown <len.brown@xxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > MAINTAINERS | 7 + > > drivers/Makefile | 2 +- > > drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c | 6 +- > > drivers/idle/Kconfig | 11 + > > drivers/idle/Makefile | 1 + > > drivers/idle/intel_idle.c | 446 > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > Any reason this arch-specific driver needs to be in drivers/idle > instead of under a platform specific dir like arch/x86? > > On embedded SoCs that have never had ACPI, we have our > platform-specific CPUidle drivers in with the rest of our platform > specific code. > it's really inconvenient to have such drivers hidden in the architecture code; it's much more convenient for cpuidle developers if they're all in one place. Think of it this way: you're not putting the NIC driver for your SOC in a architecture directory either... -- Arjan van de Ven Intel Open Source Technology Centre For development, discussion and tips for power savings, visit http://www.lesswatts.org _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
