* Vaidy sva...@linux.vnet.ibm.com [2009-10-07 16:56:48]:
* Peter Zijlstra a.p.zijls...@chello.nl [2009-10-06 20:04:39]:
On Tue, 2009-10-06 at 22:05 +0530, Arun R Bharadwaj wrote:
Also, the per-cpu nature of registration/unregistration of cpuidle
has been maintained as ACPI needs
On Wed, 2009-10-07 at 16:56 +0530, Vaidyanathan Srinivasan wrote:
* Peter Zijlstra a.p.zijls...@chello.nl [2009-10-06 20:04:39]:
On Tue, 2009-10-06 at 22:05 +0530, Arun R Bharadwaj wrote:
Also, the per-cpu nature of registration/unregistration of cpuidle
has been maintained as ACPI
* Arun R Bharadwaj a...@linux.vnet.ibm.com [2009-10-06 20:54:21]:
Hi
Please consider this for inclusion into the testing tree.
This patchset introduces cpuidle infrastructure to POWER, prototyping
for pSeries, and also does a major refactoring of current x86 idle
power management and a
On Tue, 2009-10-06 at 22:05 +0530, Arun R Bharadwaj wrote:
Also, the per-cpu nature of registration/unregistration of cpuidle
has been maintained as ACPI needs this.
Right, so can't we ditch that and have acpi default to the lowest common
C-state and warn when various cpus report different
