[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <52EBAED8.8080807@linaro.org>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 15:10:32 +0100
From: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
To: Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>
CC: peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...hat.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
rjw@...ysocki.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] cpuidle: split cpuidle_idle_call main function
into functions
On 01/30/2014 08:39 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Jan 2014, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>
>> /**
>> + * cpuidle_select - ask the cpuidle framework to choose an idle state
>> + *
>> + * @drv: the cpuidle driver
>> + * @dev: the cpuidle device
>> + *
>> + * Returns the index of the idle state. On error it returns:
>> + * -NODEV : the cpuidle framework is available
>
> s/available/not available/
>
>> + * -EBUSY : the cpuidle framework is not initialized
>> + */
>> +int cpuidle_select(struct cpuidle_driver *drv, struct cpuidle_device *dev)
>> +{
>> + if (off || !initialized)
>> + return -ENODEV;
>> +
>> + if (!drv || !dev || !dev->enabled)
>> + return -EBUSY;
>> +
>> + return cpuidle_curr_governor->select(drv, dev);
>> +}
>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(cpuidle_select);
>
> Peterz comment notwithstanding, is there actually a need to export those
> symbols? No modules should ever need to use this given this is going to
> be called by the scheduler code.
Yes, you are right. I will remove them.
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists