On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 04:31:43PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > On 04/18/2013 04:13 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 02:23:23PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > >> On 04/03/2013 02:15 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > >>> The noop functions code is not necessary because the header file is > >>> included in files which are compiled when CONFIG_CPU_IDLE is on. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> > >> I have been involved in the development of this file. I know Rob is no > >> longer working on this neither monitoring the code. > >> > >> Russell are you ok with this patch ? Rafael needs your ack to take this > >> patch into its tree. > > > > I don't know - the description doesn't make it clear. Surely, what you > > checked was that this file is _not_ included in any file which is built > > when CONFIG_CPU_IDLE is disabled. In other words, when CONFIG_CPU_IDLE > > is not defined, arm_cpuidle_simple_enter() is never referenced. > > > > If that is the case, then it's just that the patch description is the > > opposite of what it should be for this patch - and then the patch and > > description match and I don't see any reason to say no to it. > > > > Then comes the issue of who takes the patch. It looks like Rafael > > would like me to. > > Actually Rafael was willing to take the patch if you ack it. Well, I want to see a proper description on the patch which describes what it _is_ doing before I ack it. The existing description is just plain confusing. -- 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
