linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] acpi: intel_idle : break dependency between modules

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sun, 01 Jul 2012 21:36:37 +0200
From:	Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
CC:	lenb@...nel.org, trenn@...e.de, srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	deepthi@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
	x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linaro-dev@...ts.linaro.org, Colin Cross <ccross@...roid.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] acpi: intel_idle : break dependency between modules

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@...aro.org>
>>>
>>> This one looks good to me too.
>>>
>>> Acked-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.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



-- 
 <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/