From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756976Ab3BNEIZ (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Feb 2013 23:08:25 -0500 Received: from mail-wi0-f173.google.com ([209.85.212.173]:65313 "EHLO mail-wi0-f173.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755089Ab3BNEIX (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Feb 2013 23:08:23 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <511BC16C.7040807@gmail.com> References: <1360170133-5066-1-git-send-email-dirk.brandewie@gmail.com> <20130212214949.GA1003@redhat.com> <511BC16C.7040807@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 09:38:21 +0530 X-Google-Sender-Auth: UOcfMTP-0c4_O8MuqoEn3qIXjhM Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Add P state driver for Intel Core Processors From: Viresh Kumar To: Dirk Brandewie Cc: Dave Jones , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cpufreq@vger.kernel.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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.