From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: [RFC patch 02/11] cpuidle / arm : a single cpuidle driver Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 14:47:05 +0000 Message-ID: <201303151447.06150.arnd@arndb.de> References: <1363357630-22214-1-git-send-email-daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> <1363357630-22214-3-git-send-email-daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.187]:58539 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755221Ab3COOuo (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Mar 2013 10:50:44 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1363357630-22214-3-git-send-email-daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Cc: Daniel Lezcano , linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, andrew@lunn.ch, magnus.damm@gmail.com, ben-linux@fluff.org, nsekhar@ti.com, nicolas.ferre@atmel.com, rob.herring@calxeda.com, rjw@sisk.pl, kevin.hilman@linaro.org, horms@verge.net.au, kernel@pengutronix.de, kgene.kim@samsung.com, plagnioj@jcrosoft.com, linux@maxim.org.za, jason@lakedaemon.net, lenb@kernel.org On Friday 15 March 2013, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > The cpuidle drivers are duplicating a lot of code and in most > of the case there is a common pattern we can factor out: > > * setup the broadcast timers > * register the driver > * register the devices > > This arm driver is the common part between all the ARM cpuidle drivers, > with the code factored out. > > It does not handle the coupled idle state for now but it is the first > step to have everyone to converge to the same code pattern. > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano Unfortunately, I missed the session in Hong Kong, but I'd like to understand what part of this driver is actually ARM specific. I assume there is nothing in it that depends on 32 bit ARM hardware, right? Would the same code be used with arch/arm64? What about other architectures that want to share a cpuidle driver with and ARM SoC using the same hardware? We have a lot of examples of SoC vendors that use similar components on ARM and non-ARM SoCs based on SH, AVR32, Hexagon, C6x, MIPS or PowerPC. Arnd From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: arnd@arndb.de (Arnd Bergmann) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 14:47:05 +0000 Subject: [RFC patch 02/11] cpuidle / arm : a single cpuidle driver In-Reply-To: <1363357630-22214-3-git-send-email-daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> References: <1363357630-22214-1-git-send-email-daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> <1363357630-22214-3-git-send-email-daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> Message-ID: <201303151447.06150.arnd@arndb.de> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Friday 15 March 2013, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > The cpuidle drivers are duplicating a lot of code and in most > of the case there is a common pattern we can factor out: > > * setup the broadcast timers > * register the driver > * register the devices > > This arm driver is the common part between all the ARM cpuidle drivers, > with the code factored out. > > It does not handle the coupled idle state for now but it is the first > step to have everyone to converge to the same code pattern. > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano Unfortunately, I missed the session in Hong Kong, but I'd like to understand what part of this driver is actually ARM specific. I assume there is nothing in it that depends on 32 bit ARM hardware, right? Would the same code be used with arch/arm64? What about other architectures that want to share a cpuidle driver with and ARM SoC using the same hardware? We have a lot of examples of SoC vendors that use similar components on ARM and non-ARM SoCs based on SH, AVR32, Hexagon, C6x, MIPS or PowerPC. Arnd