On 04/18/2013 05:42 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
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@linaro.org
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.
Ok, I will resend.
Thanks -- Daniel