Re: [PATCH v6 2/7] ACPI: Make ACPI processor driver more extensible

On 08/07/15 22:46, Ashwin Chaugule wrote:

On 8 July 2015 at 16:46, Rafael J. Wysocki [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Hi Ashwin,

Hi,

quoted

On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 10:28 PM, Ashwin Chaugule
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On 8 July 2015 at 16:05, Ashwin Chaugule [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On 8 July 2015 at 15:55, Rafael J. Wysocki [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Hi Ashwin,

On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 9:16 PM, Ashwin Chaugule
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Hi Rafael,

[cut]

quoted

quoted

quoted

Also I'm still unsure what the connection between _CST and CPPC is.

There isnt. But I'm missing where I've implied the dependency?

Perhaps the confusion is coming from the introduction of ACPI_CST in
this file. I could leave it as it is and just separate out the
ACPI_PSS bits. But I figured, while I'm at it, I'd introduce ACPI_CST,
since we know the LPI stuff is coming up soon as a CST alternative
anyway. So if you prefer, I can drop the CST bits and maybe Sudeep can
address that as part of his LPI patchset?

Yes, please.  That would be much less confusing.

Deja Vu. :)

When I let processor_driver and processor_idle compile on ARM64, I get
a bunch of errors because processor_idle.c contains a lot of X86
specific defines. That is why I'd created the ACPI_CST option which
we'd enable only on X86.

I'm not entirely sure what these enums and functions should default
to, or what they should be on ARM specifically. Given that on ARM64
we're likely to use LPI as against CST, it seems the original approach
is better. Thoughts?

Correct, I addressed this in my RFC posting[1] and wanted to get
feedback from Rafael before proceeding. As I said in other email,
I will try to rebase and repost that series ASAP.

Regards,
Sudeep

[1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/5/6/486