[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9241eff1-0c2d-4c82-a77d-cb8b67cab6f9@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2025 12:13:32 -0500
From: David Arcari <darcari@...hat.com>
To: dedekind1@...il.com, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] intel_idle: introduce 'no_native' module parameter
Hi Artem,
On 2/7/25 10:55 AM, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> On Thu, 2025-02-06 at 11:40 -0500, David Arcari wrote:
>> +The ``no_acpi``, ``use_acpi`` and ``no_native`` module parameters are
>> +recognized by ``intel_idle`` if the kernel has been configured with ACPI
>> +support).
>
> And if kernel was not configured with ACPI support, are these not recognized? Or
> they are just no-op basically?
They are a no-op - the flags are all set to false so ACPI C-state tables
are ignored.
>
> Looks like there is a stray ")" at the end.
>
Yes I will fix that.
>> +
>> +``no_acpi`` - Do not use ACPI at all. Only native mode is available, no
>> +ACPI mode.
>> +
>> +``use_acpi`` - No-op in ACPI mode; however, the driver will consult ACPI
>> +tables for C-states on/off status in native mode.
>
> I think "however" part is a bit confusing. Would you consider re-phrasing
> without "however" ?
Sure - so is this better:
``use_acpi`` - No-op in ACPI mode, the driver will consult ACPI tabees
for C-states on/off status in native mode.
Thanks,
-DA
>
>> +
>> +``no_native`` - Work only in ACPI mode, no native mode available (ignore
>> +all custom tables).
>
> Other than these small nitpicks,
>
> Reviewed-by: Artem Bityutskiy <artem.bityutskiy@...ux.intel.com>
> Tested-by: Artem Bityutskiy <artem.bityutskiy@...ux.intel.com>
>
> (I tested it on an Intel Broadwell platform).
>
> Thanks!
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists