| Message ID | 1364991322-20585-1-git-send-email-daniel.lezcano@linaro.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Not Applicable, archived |
| Headers | show |
On 04/03/2013 02:15 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > The noop functions code is not necessary because the header file is > included in files which are compiled when CONFIG_CPU_IDLE is on. > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> I have been involved in the development of this file. I know Rob is no longer working on this neither monitoring the code. Russell are you ok with this patch ? Rafael needs your ack to take this patch into its tree. Thanks -- Daniel > --- > arch/arm/include/asm/cpuidle.h | 7 +------ > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 6 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/cpuidle.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/cpuidle.h > index 2fca60a..7367787 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/cpuidle.h > +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/cpuidle.h > @@ -1,13 +1,8 @@ > #ifndef __ASM_ARM_CPUIDLE_H > #define __ASM_ARM_CPUIDLE_H > > -#ifdef CONFIG_CPU_IDLE > extern int arm_cpuidle_simple_enter(struct cpuidle_device *dev, > - struct cpuidle_driver *drv, int index); > -#else > -static inline int arm_cpuidle_simple_enter(struct cpuidle_device *dev, > - struct cpuidle_driver *drv, int index) { return -ENODEV; } > -#endif > + struct cpuidle_driver *drv, int index); > > /* Common ARM WFI state */ > #define ARM_CPUIDLE_WFI_STATE_PWR(p) {\
On Wednesday, April 03, 2013 02:15:14 PM Daniel Lezcano wrote: > The noop functions code is not necessary because the header file is > included in files which are compiled when CONFIG_CPU_IDLE is on. > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> I need an ACK for this one. Thanks, Rafael > --- > arch/arm/include/asm/cpuidle.h | 7 +------ > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 6 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/cpuidle.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/cpuidle.h > index 2fca60a..7367787 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/cpuidle.h > +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/cpuidle.h > @@ -1,13 +1,8 @@ > #ifndef __ASM_ARM_CPUIDLE_H > #define __ASM_ARM_CPUIDLE_H > > -#ifdef CONFIG_CPU_IDLE > extern int arm_cpuidle_simple_enter(struct cpuidle_device *dev, > - struct cpuidle_driver *drv, int index); > -#else > -static inline int arm_cpuidle_simple_enter(struct cpuidle_device *dev, > - struct cpuidle_driver *drv, int index) { return -ENODEV; } > -#endif > + struct cpuidle_driver *drv, int index); > > /* Common ARM WFI state */ > #define ARM_CPUIDLE_WFI_STATE_PWR(p) {\ >
On Wednesday, April 03, 2013 02:23:23 PM Daniel Lezcano wrote: > On 04/03/2013 02:15 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > > The noop functions code is not necessary because the header file is > > included in files which are compiled when CONFIG_CPU_IDLE is on. > > > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> > > I have been involved in the development of this file. I know Rob is no > longer working on this neither monitoring the code. > > Russell are you ok with this patch ? Rafael needs your ack to take this > patch into its tree. Well, since nothing in the cpuidle directory seems to really depend on this patch, my suggestion is to merge it through the ARM tree when suitable. Thanks, Rafael > > --- > > arch/arm/include/asm/cpuidle.h | 7 +------ > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 6 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/cpuidle.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/cpuidle.h > > index 2fca60a..7367787 100644 > > --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/cpuidle.h > > +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/cpuidle.h > > @@ -1,13 +1,8 @@ > > #ifndef __ASM_ARM_CPUIDLE_H > > #define __ASM_ARM_CPUIDLE_H > > > > -#ifdef CONFIG_CPU_IDLE > > extern int arm_cpuidle_simple_enter(struct cpuidle_device *dev, > > - struct cpuidle_driver *drv, int index); > > -#else > > -static inline int arm_cpuidle_simple_enter(struct cpuidle_device *dev, > > - struct cpuidle_driver *drv, int index) { return -ENODEV; } > > -#endif > > + struct cpuidle_driver *drv, int index); > > > > /* Common ARM WFI state */ > > #define ARM_CPUIDLE_WFI_STATE_PWR(p) {\ > > >
On 04/08/2013 10:50 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Wednesday, April 03, 2013 02:23:23 PM Daniel Lezcano wrote: >> On 04/03/2013 02:15 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote: >>> The noop functions code is not necessary because the header file is >>> included in files which are compiled when CONFIG_CPU_IDLE is on. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> >> >> I have been involved in the development of this file. I know Rob is no >> longer working on this neither monitoring the code. >> >> Russell are you ok with this patch ? Rafael needs your ack to take this >> patch into its tree. > > Well, since nothing in the cpuidle directory seems to really depend on this > patch, my suggestion is to merge it through the ARM tree when suitable. Ok. >>> --- >>> arch/arm/include/asm/cpuidle.h | 7 +------ >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 6 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/cpuidle.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/cpuidle.h >>> index 2fca60a..7367787 100644 >>> --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/cpuidle.h >>> +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/cpuidle.h >>> @@ -1,13 +1,8 @@ >>> #ifndef __ASM_ARM_CPUIDLE_H >>> #define __ASM_ARM_CPUIDLE_H >>> >>> -#ifdef CONFIG_CPU_IDLE >>> extern int arm_cpuidle_simple_enter(struct cpuidle_device *dev, >>> - struct cpuidle_driver *drv, int index); >>> -#else >>> -static inline int arm_cpuidle_simple_enter(struct cpuidle_device *dev, >>> - struct cpuidle_driver *drv, int index) { return -ENODEV; } >>> -#endif >>> + struct cpuidle_driver *drv, int index); >>> >>> /* Common ARM WFI state */ >>> #define ARM_CPUIDLE_WFI_STATE_PWR(p) {\ >> >> >>
On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 02:23:23PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > On 04/03/2013 02:15 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > > The noop functions code is not necessary because the header file is > > included in files which are compiled when CONFIG_CPU_IDLE is on. > > > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> > > I have been involved in the development of this file. I know Rob is no > longer working on this neither monitoring the code. > > Russell are you ok with this patch ? Rafael needs your ack to take this > patch into its tree. I don't know - the description doesn't make it clear. Surely, what you checked was that this file is _not_ included in any file which is built when CONFIG_CPU_IDLE is disabled. In other words, when CONFIG_CPU_IDLE is not defined, arm_cpuidle_simple_enter() is never referenced. If that is the case, then it's just that the patch description is the opposite of what it should be for this patch - and then the patch and description match and I don't see any reason to say no to it. Then comes the issue of who takes the patch. It looks like Rafael would like me to. I'm fine with that, but it will need to go into the patch system as I'm rather busy catching up with email, and I expect to be catching up for at least the rest of this month. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pm" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 04/18/2013 04:13 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 02:23:23PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote: >> On 04/03/2013 02:15 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote: >>> The noop functions code is not necessary because the header file is >>> included in files which are compiled when CONFIG_CPU_IDLE is on. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> >> >> I have been involved in the development of this file. I know Rob is no >> longer working on this neither monitoring the code. >> >> Russell are you ok with this patch ? Rafael needs your ack to take this >> patch into its tree. > > I don't know - the description doesn't make it clear. Surely, what you > checked was that this file is _not_ included in any file which is built > when CONFIG_CPU_IDLE is disabled. In other words, when CONFIG_CPU_IDLE > is not defined, arm_cpuidle_simple_enter() is never referenced. > > If that is the case, then it's just that the patch description is the > opposite of what it should be for this patch - and then the patch and > description match and I don't see any reason to say no to it. > > Then comes the issue of who takes the patch. It looks like Rafael > would like me to. Actually Rafael was willing to take the patch if you ack it.
On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 04:31:43PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > On 04/18/2013 04:13 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 02:23:23PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > >> On 04/03/2013 02:15 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > >>> The noop functions code is not necessary because the header file is > >>> included in files which are compiled when CONFIG_CPU_IDLE is on. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> > >> > >> I have been involved in the development of this file. I know Rob is no > >> longer working on this neither monitoring the code. > >> > >> Russell are you ok with this patch ? Rafael needs your ack to take this > >> patch into its tree. > > > > I don't know - the description doesn't make it clear. Surely, what you > > checked was that this file is _not_ included in any file which is built > > when CONFIG_CPU_IDLE is disabled. In other words, when CONFIG_CPU_IDLE > > is not defined, arm_cpuidle_simple_enter() is never referenced. > > > > If that is the case, then it's just that the patch description is the > > opposite of what it should be for this patch - and then the patch and > > description match and I don't see any reason to say no to it. > > > > Then comes the issue of who takes the patch. It looks like Rafael > > would like me to. > > Actually Rafael was willing to take the patch if you ack it. Well, I want to see a proper description on the patch which describes what it _is_ doing before I ack it. The existing description is just plain confusing. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pm" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 04/18/2013 05:42 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 04:31:43PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote: >> On 04/18/2013 04:13 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: >>> On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 02:23:23PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote: >>>> On 04/03/2013 02:15 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote: >>>>> The noop functions code is not necessary because the header file is >>>>> included in files which are compiled when CONFIG_CPU_IDLE is on. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> >>>> >>>> I have been involved in the development of this file. I know Rob is no >>>> longer working on this neither monitoring the code. >>>> >>>> Russell are you ok with this patch ? Rafael needs your ack to take this >>>> patch into its tree. >>> >>> I don't know - the description doesn't make it clear. Surely, what you >>> checked was that this file is _not_ included in any file which is built >>> when CONFIG_CPU_IDLE is disabled. In other words, when CONFIG_CPU_IDLE >>> is not defined, arm_cpuidle_simple_enter() is never referenced. >>> >>> If that is the case, then it's just that the patch description is the >>> opposite of what it should be for this patch - and then the patch and >>> description match and I don't see any reason to say no to it. >>> >>> Then comes the issue of who takes the patch. It looks like Rafael >>> would like me to. >> >> Actually Rafael was willing to take the patch if you ack it. > > Well, I want to see a proper description on the patch which describes > what it _is_ doing before I ack it. The existing description is just > plain confusing. Ok, I will resend. Thanks -- Daniel
diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/cpuidle.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/cpuidle.h index 2fca60a..7367787 100644 --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/cpuidle.h +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/cpuidle.h @@ -1,13 +1,8 @@ #ifndef __ASM_ARM_CPUIDLE_H #define __ASM_ARM_CPUIDLE_H -#ifdef CONFIG_CPU_IDLE extern int arm_cpuidle_simple_enter(struct cpuidle_device *dev, - struct cpuidle_driver *drv, int index); -#else -static inline int arm_cpuidle_simple_enter(struct cpuidle_device *dev, - struct cpuidle_driver *drv, int index) { return -ENODEV; } -#endif + struct cpuidle_driver *drv, int index); /* Common ARM WFI state */ #define ARM_CPUIDLE_WFI_STATE_PWR(p) {\
The noop functions code is not necessary because the header file is included in files which are compiled when CONFIG_CPU_IDLE is on. Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> --- arch/arm/include/asm/cpuidle.h | 7 +------ 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 6 deletions(-)