On 06/30/2012 12:27 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Friday, June 29, 2012, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
On 06/28/2012 09:24 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Thursday, June 28, 2012, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
When the system is booted with some cpus offline, the idle driver is not initialized. When a cpu is set online, the acpi code call the intel idle init function. Unfortunately this code introduce a dependency between intel_idle and acpi.
This patch is intended to remove this dependency by using the notifier of intel_idle. This patch has the benefit of encapsulating the intel_idle driver and remove some exported functions.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano daniel.lezcano@linaro.org
This one looks good to me too.
Acked-by: Rafael J. Wysocki rjw@sisk.pl
Thanks for the review Rafael.
Len, are you going to take it?
Rafael, Len,
After the discussion [1], I put in place a tree at:
ssh://git.linaro.org/srv/git.linaro.org/git/people/dlezcano/cpuidle-next.git #cpuidle-next
I proposed this tree to group the cpuidle modifications and prevent the last minutes conflict when Len will apply them.
I also included the tree into linux-next for wider testing.
I can't speak for Len, but I'm not sure he'll like this.
I sent the proposition a week ago and Len was Cc'ed. I guess he is very busy but the problem we are facing is there are a lot of pending modifications for cpuidle because of some new architecture (like the big.LITTLE and tegra3). Colin's patchset is one of them.
Anyway, you seem to have the same material as Len in that tree, won't there be any conflicts in linux-next?
At the first glance no, until he merge the patches we sent. As I already said the purpose is to help to consolidate the patches sent for cpuidle by acting as a proxy.
I hope that helps.
Thanks -- Daniel