[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <f8a0e5ad-44d1-9a12-1995-57f3671a5889@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2019 15:06:47 +0530
From: Abhishek <huntbag@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Daniel Axtens <dja@...ens.net>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Cc: rjw@...ysocki.net, daniel.lezcano@...aro.org, mpe@...erman.id.au,
ego@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] cpuidle : auto-promotion for cpuidle states
Hi Daniel,
On 04/08/2019 07:55 PM, Daniel Axtens wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Sorry, just realised another thing I wanted to ask:
>
>> @@ -442,6 +442,26 @@ static int menu_select(struct cpuidle_driver *drv, struct cpuidle_device *dev,
>> }
>> }
>>
>>
>> +#ifdef CPUIDLE_FLAG_AUTO_PROMOTION
> Why is this based on CPUIDLE_FLAG_ rather than CONFIG_CPU_IDLE_? Won't
> this always be true, given that the flag is defined regardless of the
> config option in the header?
Yeah, You are right. This should have been CONFIG_CPU_IDLE_AUTO_PROMOTION.
--Abhishek
Powered by blists - more mailing lists