On 8 July 2015 at 18:21, Rafael J. Wysocki rjw@rjwysocki.net wrote:
On Wednesday, July 08, 2015 05:46:45 PM Ashwin Chaugule wrote:
On 8 July 2015 at 16:46, Rafael J. Wysocki rafael@kernel.org wrote:
Perhaps the confusion is coming from the introduction of ACPI_CST in this file. I could leave it as it is and just separate out the ACPI_PSS bits. But I figured, while I'm at it, I'd introduce ACPI_CST, since we know the LPI stuff is coming up soon as a CST alternative anyway. So if you prefer, I can drop the CST bits and maybe Sudeep can address that as part of his LPI patchset?
Yes, please. That would be much less confusing.
Deja Vu. :)
When I let processor_driver and processor_idle compile on ARM64, I get a bunch of errors because processor_idle.c contains a lot of X86 specific defines. That is why I'd created the ACPI_CST option which we'd enable only on X86.
I'm not entirely sure what these enums and functions should default to, or what they should be on ARM specifically. Given that on ARM64 we're likely to use LPI as against CST, it seems the original approach is better. Thoughts?
Before we go anywhere deeper, have you checked what happens on ia64?
I dont have access, but I'm really not changing anything functionally.
Thanks, Ashwin.