26 Sep
2013
26 Sep
'13
6:09 a.m.
On 26 September 2013 03:52, Daniel Lezcano daniel.lezcano@linaro.org wrote:
On 09/22/2013 03:21 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar viresh.kumar@linaro.org
This deserved a log, sorry for missing that :(
The optimization sounds good but IMHO if we can move this state out of the cpuidle common framework that would be nicer.
The poll_idle is only applicable for x86 (acpi_driver and intel_idle), hence I suggest we move this state to these drivers, that will cleanup the framework code and will remove index shift macro CPUIDLE_DRIVER_STATE_START which IMHO is weid and prone-to-error.
Lets see what X86 folks have to say about it and then we can do it.. Btw, wouldn't that add some code duplication in those two drivers?