> I guess this would eliminate the problems caused by pm_idle. Right. ...at least we can contain it inside process.c where we still need to be able to handle halt/amd-bug/poll. Probably I'll re-name it to better reflect its function, say x86_default_idle, in this case. > In that case I also think we need not implement a default > driver (like the one I had done https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/3/22/154) > to handle the case when acpi_idle and intel_idle may not register. Right. the stuff in process.c should handle the !cpuidle and !CPU_IDLE cases, and in the typical case it will handle idle during boot before cpuidle initializes. > Additionally, we may not need to support multiple cpuidle driver registration > as now there would be only acpi_idle and intel_idle > and mechanism already exists to select between the two. Right. I think multiple driver registration is over-kill, though I have no real opposition to it should a real need for it emerge. The only need I could come up with is that it would save me a reboot when I want to compare drivers -- but we should optimize for real-world-use, not lab use, and simpler is better. thanks, Len Brown, Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
