[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <871v0tvqbh.fsf@ti.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2011 16:06:42 -0700
From: Kevin Hilman <khilman@...com>
To: Trinabh Gupta <trinabh@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: arjan@...ux.intel.com, peterz@...radead.org, lenb@...nel.org,
venki@...gle.com, ak@...ux.intel.com, len.brown@...el.com,
davinci-linux-open-source@...ux.davincidsp.com,
linux-sh@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
linux-omap@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [RFC PATCH V3 4/4] cpuidle: Single/Global registration of idle states
Hi Trinabh,
Trinabh Gupta <trinabh@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
[...]
> I just wanted to get comments on the design and understand how it
> affects various architectures in question. It looks to me as if the
> design should be okay and infact better for architectures like ARM
> since they do not have different idle states for different cpus and
> thus do not require per-cpu registration. Global registration would
> work and be simpler; please correct me if I am wrong.
Yes, I agree that the new design is better, I especially like that it's
more clear (and expected) that final state decision making is to be done
directly in the driver without the back-and-forth in the current setup.
Thanks,
Kevin
--
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