[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090924051238.GA5963@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 10:42:41 +0530
From: Arun R Bharadwaj <arun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
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@...ibm.com>,
Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>,
Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@...el.com>,
Venkatesh Pallipadi <venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com>,
Arun Bharadwaj <arun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [v6 PATCH 0/7]: cpuidle/x86/POWER: Cleanup idle power
management code in x86, cleanup drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c and
introduce cpuidle to POWER.
* Arun R Bharadwaj <arun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> [2009-09-22 16:55:27]:
Hi Len, (or other acpi folks),
I had a question regarding ACPI-cpuidle interaction in the current
implementation.
Currently, every cpu (i.e. acpi_processor) registers to cpuidle as
a cpuidle_device. So every cpu has to go through the process of
setting up the idle states and then registering as a cpuidle device.
What exactly is the reason behind this?
Is this really necessary or can we have a system-wide one-time registering
to cpuidle by ACPI?
I'm currently in the process of enabling cpuidle for POWER systems and
find that having a system-wide registering mechanism to be a cleaner
design.
--arun
--
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