From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752805AbcELJLF (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 May 2016 05:11:05 -0400 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:56977 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752603AbcELJLB (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 May 2016 05:11:01 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/5] ACPI / processor_idle: introduce ACPI_PROCESSOR_CSTATE To: Len Brown References: <1462981062-24909-1-git-send-email-sudeep.holla@arm.com> <1462981062-24909-2-git-send-email-sudeep.holla@arm.com> Cc: Sudeep Holla , linux acpi , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Vikas Sajjan , Sunil , Prashanth Prakash , Ashwin Chaugule , Al Stone , Lorenzo Pieralisi , X86 ML , linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org From: Sudeep Holla Organization: ARM Message-ID: <573448A0.5030003@arm.com> Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 10:10:56 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org (I seem to have 2 emails, replying on the second) On 11/05/16 19:28, Len Brown wrote: > What is the functional goal/purpose of adding CONFIG_ACPI_PROCESSOR_CSTATE? > Avoid adding unnecessary dummy implementations of functions and variables that will never be used on ARM64 and also looks ugly IMO. E.g.: arch_safe_halt boot_option_idle_override IDLE_NOMWAIT acpi_unlazy_tlb acpi_processor_cstate_check disabled_by_idle_boot_param and more... > If the answer is that it saves code space on an ARM build, how much > space does it save? > NO, it doesn't even add a kB of code I believe, so that's definitely not the reason. I am fine to retain if we can find a saner way to solve the above issue. -- Regards, Sudeep From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sudeep Holla Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 09:10:56 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/5] ACPI / processor_idle: introduce ACPI_PROCESSOR_CSTATE Message-Id: <573448A0.5030003@arm.com> List-Id: References: <1462981062-24909-1-git-send-email-sudeep.holla@arm.com> <1462981062-24909-2-git-send-email-sudeep.holla@arm.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Len Brown Cc: Sudeep Holla , linux acpi , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Vikas Sajjan , Sunil , Prashanth Prakash , Ashwin Chaugule , Al Stone , Lorenzo Pieralisi , X86 ML , linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org (I seem to have 2 emails, replying on the second) On 11/05/16 19:28, Len Brown wrote: > What is the functional goal/purpose of adding CONFIG_ACPI_PROCESSOR_CSTATE? > Avoid adding unnecessary dummy implementations of functions and variables that will never be used on ARM64 and also looks ugly IMO. E.g.: arch_safe_halt boot_option_idle_override IDLE_NOMWAIT acpi_unlazy_tlb acpi_processor_cstate_check disabled_by_idle_boot_param and more... > If the answer is that it saves code space on an ARM build, how much > space does it save? > NO, it doesn't even add a kB of code I believe, so that's definitely not the reason. I am fine to retain if we can find a saner way to solve the above issue. -- Regards, Sudeep