Hi! On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 7:29 AM, Menon, Nishanth <n...@ti.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 12:26 AM, Rajendra Nayak <rna...@ti.com> wrote: >> On Friday 13 July 2012 08:31 AM, Menon, Nishanth wrote: >>> >>> my Crib about the above apis are lack of logic power state handling:( >>> which forces code like cpuidle to use different apis for logic >>> power state and force them to use these apis just for pwrst. >> >> >> Have you looked at an alternate approach that was proposed here.. >> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/1160431/ >> > Santosh pointed me to the thread offline. This is indeed a much better > approach IMHO than having 3 conflicting options inside powerdomain > framework. After looking at the code and having sent my comments, I like it ... mainly because it is really similar to my proposal ;-p Can you elaborate more on 'having 3 conflicting options inside powerdomain framework'?
Here are the main differences in the implementation: - the RFC code provides a _private header file, which forces the external users (cpuidle, pmXXXX.c etc.), - the RFC code still uses the same function names while my code renames them to '*_func_*'. This makes the code look more complicated than it really is. > Regards, > Nishanth Menon We are having a discussion on the best way to have the feature in. More to come! Thanks! Jean -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
