[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKohpokBPD35pBpCt-x0KGNvy3hxmYGPxXpSBJZcgo7ir8L3hA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 11:39:28 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Lists linaro-kernel <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>,
Patch Tracking <patches@...aro.org>,
"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 18/21] cpuidle: don't call poll_idle_init() for every cpu
On 26 September 2013 03:52, Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org> wrote:
> On 09/22/2013 03:21 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
This deserved a log, sorry for missing that :(
> The optimization sounds good but IMHO if we can move this state out of
> the cpuidle common framework that would be nicer.
>
> The poll_idle is only applicable for x86 (acpi_driver and intel_idle),
> hence I suggest we move this state to these drivers, that will cleanup
> the framework code and will remove index shift macro
> CPUIDLE_DRIVER_STATE_START which IMHO is weid and prone-to-error.
Lets see what X86 folks have to say about it and then we can do it..
Btw, wouldn't that add some code duplication in those two drivers?
--
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