On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 2:52 PM, Colin Cross wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 11:32 AM, Rob Lee wrote:
>> Maintainers for drivers/cpuidle, do you have any comments/opinions
>> about this patch?
>>
>> Intel cpuidle and acpi cpuidle maintainers, do you have any
>> comments/opinions about this patch
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 11:32 AM, Rob Lee wrote:
> Maintainers for drivers/cpuidle, do you have any comments/opinions
> about this patch?
>
> Intel cpuidle and acpi cpuidle maintainers, do you have any
> comments/opinions about this patch and the changes to your code?
>
> Any other review and comm
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 11:32 AM, Rob Lee wrote:
> Maintainers for drivers/cpuidle, do you have any comments/opinions
> about this patch?
Venki has changed employers (probably needs a patch to MAINTAINERS?).
Cc'ing his new email address.
> Intel cpuidle and acpi cpuidle maintainers, do you have
Maintainers for drivers/cpuidle, do you have any comments/opinions
about this patch?
Intel cpuidle and acpi cpuidle maintainers, do you have any
comments/opinions about this patch and the changes to your code?
Any other review and comments welcome.
Summary of positive and negatives as I understa
This patch series moves the timekeeping and irq enabling from the platform
code to the core cpuidle driver. Also, the platform irq disabling was removed
as it appears that all calls into cpuidle_call_idle will have already called
local_irq_disable().
To save reviewers time, only a few platforms w
