[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1251286625.1329.6.camel@twins>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 13:37:05 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: arun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: Joel Schopp <jschopp@...tin.ibm.com>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@...ibm.com>,
Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
"Pallipadi, Venkatesh" <venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [v2 PATCH 2/2]: pseries: Implement Pseries Processor Idle idle
module.
On Wed, 2009-08-26 at 17:02 +0530, Arun R Bharadwaj wrote:
> * Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> [2009-08-26 13:27:18]:
>
> > On Wed, 2009-08-26 at 16:40 +0530, Arun R Bharadwaj wrote:
> > > +void (*pm_idle)(void);
> > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pm_idle);
> >
> > Seriously.. this caused plenty problems over on x86 and you're doing the
> > exact same dumb thing?
> >
>
> Hi Peter,
>
> Cpuidle assumes pm_idle to be the default idle power management
> function. So i should either do this, or change the stuff in cpuidle.c
> so that it is more abstract.
I would much prefer the latter, I've been telling the x86 power folks to
fix this like forever, but they never seem to get around to it.
They even tried adding a second such unmanaged function pointer for
play-dead, instead of integrating everything into a single management
interface.
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists