Messages in this thread |  | | From | "Rafael J. Wysocki" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 34/35] tick: Provide tick_suspend_local() | Date | Wed, 18 Feb 2015 17:22:26 +0100 |
| |
On Wednesday, February 18, 2015 02:35:24 PM Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 02:31:42PM +0000, 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. > > Ah I see, the headers seem to do the right thing and declare the > function in core (GENERIC_CLOCKEVENTS) with a comment. > > But then the patch continues defining the functions under PM_SLEEP. > > I wonder why the build robot has not reported fail on this.. > > Would the below make sense?
That needs to be done on top of the suspend-to-idle material that has just been merged.
Why don't you drop the PM_SLEEP-related changes from the series for the time being and let's clean things up top of it? That should be more straightforward I think.
Rafael
|  |