> This patch series was posted in reply to a table of contents > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/4/2/8 > > "By the end of this series, pm_idle is removed as a public > x86 idle-loop registration mechanism. A few other things are > cleaned up in the process." Ok so lets rewind a bit - why do we want to remove pm_idle rather than just fix up the way registration occurs. It's just a symbol, one trivial interface that is exported and perhaps wants the export method tidying up. > Trinabh also replied to you, pointing one of the previous > LKML discussions about the mis-use of pm_idle. And there are misuses of just about every kernel symbol - kmalloc for example causes some people a lot of trouble ! > We'll create a new APM cpuidle driver in Linux (Trinabh prototyped one), > and at the same time, schedule it for removal in a year. Personally, > I think it is make-work, and in real-life it is more likely to do > more harm than removing apm_idle, but I don't want to stand in the > way of process. So you could just leave it alone - that's less work, less disruption and doesn't do any harm at all. As I read this the plan at the moment otherwise is - churn up all the code - remove PM idle hook - rewrite the APM code - replace the APM code whereas you could just leave the symbol exported or even just a hook to make people to do it right using: int register_pm_idle(function); Simples yes ? and then wait a year For that matter instead of writing a new driver you could just stuff APM into same hooks we have for virtualisation ! This whole patch series appears to be a giant piece of pointless makework. Alan _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
