On Sunday, September 16, 2012, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 09/07/2012 11:50 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Friday, September 07, 2012, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> >> The cpuidle core takes care of filling this field from drv->state_count.
> >
> > I'm not quite sure this is always valid. If dev ha
On 09/07/2012 11:50 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Friday, September 07, 2012, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> The cpuidle core takes care of filling this field from drv->state_count.
>
> I'm not quite sure this is always valid. If dev has already been
> initialized and dev->state_count is different
On Friday, September 07, 2012, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> The cpuidle core takes care of filling this field from drv->state_count.
I'm not quite sure this is always valid. If dev has already been
initialized and dev->state_count is different from 0,
cpuidle_enable_device() doesn't actually change it
Patch 1 and 3 are independent cleanups. Perhaps you can separate them
out from the per-cpu latency series in case you have to repost.
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 3:49 PM, Daniel Lezcano
wrote:
> The cpuidle core takes care of filling this field from drv->state_count.
>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano
The cpuidle core takes care of filling this field from drv->state_count.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano
---
drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c |2 --
1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c b/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c
index 084b1d2..fc4757e
