* Torsten Duwe [2009-12-07 11:17:57]:
> On Sunday 06 December 2009, Arun R Bharadwaj wrote:
>
> > Peter objected to the idea of integrating this with the old pm_idle
> > because it has already caused a lot of problems on x86 and we wouldn't
> > want to be doing the same mistake on POWER. The dis
On Sunday 06 December 2009, Arun R Bharadwaj wrote:
> Peter objected to the idea of integrating this with the old pm_idle
> because it has already caused a lot of problems on x86 and we wouldn't
> want to be doing the same mistake on POWER. The discussion related to
> that could be found here http
* Torsten Duwe [2009-12-04 23:20:00]:
> On Wednesday 02 December 2009, Arun R Bharadwaj wrote:
> > * Arun R Bharadwaj [2009-12-02 15:24:27]:
> >
> > This patch cleans up drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c
> > Earlier cpuidle assumed pm_idle as the default idle loop. Break that
> > assumption and make it
On Wednesday 02 December 2009, Arun R Bharadwaj wrote:
> * Arun R Bharadwaj [2009-12-02 15:24:27]:
>
> This patch cleans up drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c
> Earlier cpuidle assumed pm_idle as the default idle loop. Break that
> assumption and make it more generic.
Is there a problem with the old pm_id
* Arun R Bharadwaj [2009-12-02 15:24:27]:
This patch cleans up drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c
Earlier cpuidle assumed pm_idle as the default idle loop. Break that
assumption and make it more generic. cpuidle_idle_call() which is the
main idle loop of cpuidle is to be called by architectures which have
