On 05/02/2014 02:09 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Friday, May 02, 2014 10:52:27 AM Daniel Lezcano wrote:
On 05/01/2014 12:47 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Wednesday, April 30, 2014 02:01:02 PM Daniel Lezcano wrote:
Encapsulate the large portion of cpuidle_idle_call inside another
function so when CONFIG_CPU_IDLE=n, the code will be compiled out.
Also that is benefitial for the clarity of the code as it removes
a nested indentation level.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezc...@linaro.org>
Well, this conflicts with
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/4071541/
which you haven't commented on and I still want cpuidle_select() to be able to
return negative values because of
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/4089631/
(and I have one more patch on top of these two that requires this).
Any ideas how to resolve that?
I don't think we have a big conflict. If Peter takes your patches before
than mines then I will refresh and resend them.
Actually, I was planning the merge them myself, because they are more cpuidle
than the scheduler, but either way would be fine.
Well I have some patches for the scheduler which will need these
modifications. Is it possible to merge them throw a common branch to be
shared between sched and pm ?
I am open to any other suggestion.
Please see the other message I've just sent. :-)
--
<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
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/