Re: How to facilitate the cpuidle drivers to go to the same direction (Was: Re: [PATCH 4/9] ARM: OMAP4: cpuidle: fix wrong driver initialization)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, Apr 01, 2013 at 10:29:48AM +0200, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-04-01 at 11:35 +0530, Deepthi Dharwar wrote:
> > But then, this means we get all the
> > arch specific code out under drivers/cpuidle
> > which can be very messy.
> 
> Not really no. We already have that here or there in other drivers,
> it's not necessarily messy and the stuff like that can generally be made
> reasonably self contained.
> 
> The main issue is that if I (powerpc) wants a fix in my
> some_ppc_box_idle.c driver, especially if it needs to sync with other
> arch changes, having to sync/ack with Rafael might complicate things a
> bit (though not necessarily a lot).
> 
> I would probably keep the liberty of sending to Linus directly urgent
> bug/regression fixes to individual cpuidle drivers relating to our archs
> without waiting every now and then if for example Rafael is on
> vacation :-)

Merging them all over sounds like a good idea to me as well.

This isn't too different from how we handle other subsystems; as
architecutre maintainer you just use your judgement on what needs an ack
vs cc. Some smaller details about how the backend of the driver works
on a platform is quite different from refactoring portions of the
framework.


-Olof
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tegra" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html




[Index of Archives]     [ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux ARM MSM]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux