Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 14 Feb 2013 07:23:44 -0800 | From | Dirk Brandewie <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/5] Add P state driver for Intel Core Processors |
| |
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 >> <dirk.brandewie@gmail.com> 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 > >
| |