Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Thu, 14 Feb 2013 09:38:21 +0530 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/5] Add P state driver for Intel Core Processors | From | Viresh Kumar <> |
| |
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.
|  |