Received: by 2002:a25:4158:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id o85csp3687322yba; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 02:38:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyeYoxMjywmzJLB19GU3xsBSIBO57eV16IW3u4BTiQtGI6fYhjIZlsL52khESPDknyFkjem X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:b281:: with SMTP id u1mr36099374plr.30.1554802682631; Tue, 09 Apr 2019 02:38:02 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1554802682; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=ajHgLUNZgDcQSwx3mOYlYkvWNP6/fuhFCdC0RvWyfiwdmoj9/y3tl1ZBS/BlFZlLes iEWHNO11gVnauNw2GVTkxCFr1Yzplgu6UStrS2QTwDcSbvr7Io76VfXipbBiwHaFKGOx 1cr5qUF7giOhp2XOZxxG3MD/KQlzU7IjZC75v7Z6Kp0L5dVUYbTKtEG1hM/WwFwTaJLD nzUoZ5byWx+wELXPikcxq+RvTNZU1xdyInAozxrbPAkuFSnZJwt+1ag3jvD+CRCJXOwJ WB0uV0tKw5V/YJtEkkNcMil4IYof0YxHv0xMW8qaTOssaWnPWO0ct9tIc49AHd4zKexG D5Qg== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:message-id:content-language :content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:mime-version:user-agent:date :from:references:cc:to:subject; bh=WxeelquM1QBUunsMF77M1QhVkmevkR3EryDj6amODAc=; b=yEj93rfRgEHODE6/EgDO5y+sbeTNwTOqoHzvMvWLRmXwzmLE4hEV51HZOKGbOUCq8n 9kaNCx/0B17TBdHROLpDlGj8M/+5Qyjoe0nLLn/LVQNfb3caBZNH/2u2OAC2BReppk2v GuwmMuIUqTfBW55K7orkVJ2g7uIB2QWRFueUW/tjK9+7vMzfefcpMr52rPort5AihFde sZx8ROulsWD8dlnTCIQ8wBHymw1+eQJtdIhoGIrPqoY+pDccZZwfnGHbrSZvR1XrLmII bG2zjK6amsnUEzVFmbYsyCqttYXMEkO4IO+mYb1TokSyqfjNGTrxDoD5TMjVvXYtidlf x0rg== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=ibm.com Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id z72si28474544pgd.401.2019.04.09.02.37.45; Tue, 09 Apr 2019 02:38:02 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=ibm.com Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726833AbfDIJg4 (ORCPT + 99 others); Tue, 9 Apr 2019 05:36:56 -0400 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:34740 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726387AbfDIJg4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Apr 2019 05:36:56 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098409.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x399Y7Ff034997 for ; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 05:36:55 -0400 Received: from e06smtp05.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp05.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.101]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2rrpp1e976-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Tue, 09 Apr 2019 05:36:55 -0400 Received: from localhost by e06smtp05.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 10:36:53 +0100 Received: from b06cxnps4076.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (9.149.109.198) by e06smtp05.uk.ibm.com (192.168.101.135) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256) Tue, 9 Apr 2019 10:36:50 +0100 Received: from b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.160]) by b06cxnps4076.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id x399anDR43974692 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 9 Apr 2019 09:36:49 GMT Received: from b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67C96A405B; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 09:36:49 +0000 (GMT) Received: from b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC29DA4054; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 09:36:47 +0000 (GMT) Received: from oc0383214508.ibm.com (unknown [9.124.35.65]) by b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 09:36:47 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] cpuidle : auto-promotion for cpuidle states To: Daniel Axtens , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org Cc: rjw@rjwysocki.net, daniel.lezcano@linaro.org, mpe@ellerman.id.au, ego@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <20190405091647.4169-1-huntbag@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20190405091647.4169-2-huntbag@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <87lg0kwp3t.fsf@dja-thinkpad.axtens.net> From: Abhishek Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2019 15:06:47 +0530 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87lg0kwp3t.fsf@dja-thinkpad.axtens.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-US X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 19040909-0020-0000-0000-0000032DD817 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 19040909-0021-0000-0000-0000217FFD89 Message-Id: X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2019-04-09_03:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=734 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1904090063 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Daniel, On 04/08/2019 07:55 PM, Daniel Axtens wrote: > Hi, > > Sorry, just realised another thing I wanted to ask: > >> @@ -442,6 +442,26 @@ static int menu_select(struct cpuidle_driver *drv, struct cpuidle_device *dev, >> } >> } >> >> >> +#ifdef CPUIDLE_FLAG_AUTO_PROMOTION > Why is this based on CPUIDLE_FLAG_ rather than CONFIG_CPU_IDLE_? Won't > this always be true, given that the flag is defined regardless of the > config option in the header? Yeah, You are right. This should have been CONFIG_CPU_IDLE_AUTO_PROMOTION. --Abhishek