From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934688Ab3BNPXu (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Feb 2013 10:23:50 -0500 Received: from mail-da0-f46.google.com ([209.85.210.46]:57925 "EHLO mail-da0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1760489Ab3BNPXs (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Feb 2013 10:23:48 -0500 Message-ID: <511D0180.2080809@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 07:23:44 -0800 From: Dirk Brandewie User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" CC: Viresh Kumar , Dirk Brandewie , Dave Jones , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cpufreq@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Add P state driver for Intel Core Processors References: <1360170133-5066-1-git-send-email-dirk.brandewie@gmail.com> <511BC16C.7040807@gmail.com> <1540905.Sh9giL2bZe@vostro.rjw.lan> In-Reply-To: <1540905.Sh9giL2bZe@vostro.rjw.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 02/14/2013 04:21 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Thursday, February 14, 2013 09:38:21 AM Viresh Kumar wrote: >> On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 10:08 PM, Dirk Brandewie >> wrote: >>> For the case where both are built-in the load order works my driver uses >>> device_initcall() and acpi_cpufreq uses late_initcall(). >>> >>> For the case where both are a module (which I was sure I tested) you are >>> right >>> I will have to do something. >>> >>> For now I propose to make my driver built-in only while I sort out the right >>> solution for the module build. Does this seem reasonable to everyone? >> >> Of-course i am missing something here. Why would anybody want to insert >> acpi-cpufreq module when the system supports the pstate driver. >> >> In case they are mutually exclusive, then we can have something like >> depends on !ACPI-DRIVER in the kconfig option of pstate driver. > > Yes. Or the other way around (i.e. make acpi_cpufreq depend on > !X86_INTEL_PSTATE). > The issue is that acpi-cpufreq still needs to be available for Intel processors before SandyBridge and for other x86 compatible processors we can't make intel_pstate and acpi-cpufreq mutually exclusive. Having intel_pstate built-in solves the issue without the need to patch acpi-cpufreq. I believe that most distros build the scaling drivers in so the distro/user will make the explicit decision to use intel_pstate. > Thanks, > Rafael > >