| Date | Tue, 17 Feb 2015 12:55:44 -0500 (EST) | From | Nicolas Pitre <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 34/35] tick: Provide tick_suspend_local() |
| |
On Tue, 17 Feb 2015, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 12:15:09PM +0000, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> > > > > This function is intended to use by the freezer once the freezer folks > > solved their race issues. Also required to get rid of the ARM BL > > switcher tick hackery. > > Totally agree with the patch(es), but I noticed that the ARM bL switcher > does not depend on PM_SLEEP, so I do not think you can compile > tick_{suspend/resume}_local() out if !PM_SLEEP, unless dependency > is enforced by the ARM bL switcher config but I do not think that > the config dependency really exists, Nico please correct me if I am > wrong.
The ARM bL switcher does not depend on PM_SUSPEND nor does it enforce it because it currently doesn't need it. So yeah, either PM_SUSPEND is selected bringing quite a lot of code with it, or another symbol is used for those functions (CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU maybe?).
Nicolas
|