On 06/30/2012 12:27 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

On Friday, June 29, 2012, Daniel Lezcano wrote:

quoted

On 06/28/2012 09:24 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

quoted

On Thursday, June 28, 2012, Daniel Lezcano wrote:

quoted

When the system is booted with some cpus offline, the idle
driver is not initialized. When a cpu is set online, the
acpi code call the intel idle init function. Unfortunately
this code introduce a dependency between intel_idle and acpi.

This patch is intended to remove this dependency by using the
notifier of intel_idle. This patch has the benefit of
encapsulating the intel_idle driver and remove some exported
functions.

Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <redacted>

This one looks good to me too.

Acked-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <redacted>

Thanks for the review Rafael.

quoted

Len, are you going to take it?

Rafael, Len,

After the discussion [1], I put in place a tree at:

ssh://git.linaro.org/srv/git.linaro.org/git/people/dlezcano/cpuidle-next.git
#cpuidle-next

I proposed this tree to group the cpuidle modifications and prevent the
last minutes conflict when Len will apply them.

I also included the tree into linux-next for wider testing.

I can't speak for Len, but I'm not sure he'll like this.

I sent the proposition a week ago and Len was Cc'ed. I guess he is very
busy but the problem we are facing is there are a lot of pending
modifications for cpuidle because of some new architecture (like the
big.LITTLE and tegra3). Colin's patchset is one of them.

Anyway, you seem to have the same material as Len in that tree, won't there
be any conflicts in linux-next?

At the first glance no, until he merge the patches we sent. As I already
said the purpose is to help to consolidate the patches sent for cpuidle
by acting as a proxy.

I hope that helps.

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