From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Lunn Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/15] ARM: cpuidle: add init/exit routine Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 20:09:08 +0100 Message-ID: <20130325190908.GC631@lunn.ch> References: <1364234140-514-1-git-send-email-daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> <1364234140-514-8-git-send-email-daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> <20130325181038.GA631@lunn.ch> <51509873.1010408@linaro.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from londo.lunn.ch ([80.238.139.98]:60627 "EHLO londo.lunn.ch" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758745Ab3CYTJT (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Mar 2013 15:09:19 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <51509873.1010408@linaro.org> Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org To: Daniel Lezcano Cc: Andrew Lunn , rjw@sisk.pl, tglx@linutronix.de, patches@linaro.org, linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux@maxim.org.za, nicolas.ferre@atmel.com, plagnioj@jcrosoft.com, lenb@kernel.org, nsekhar@ti.com, kevin.hilman@linaro.org, horms@verge.net.au, magnus.damm@gmail.com, kernel@pengutronix.de, ben-linux@fluff.org, kgene.kim@samsung.com, rob.herring@calxeda.com, jason@lakedaemon.net, linus.walleij@linaro.org, linux@arm.linux.org.uk > > Please could you add a comment in the code about which piece is > > specific to ARM, because its not obvious to me. Its not like there is > > a reference to WFI for example. It looks like this code could go in > > drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c > > Yes, I agree. At the first glance, the code, as it is, could go in this > file but more ARM specific code will be moved to this ARM generic code > driver like device tree description and couple idle states. The init > function would be more arch specific then. Hi Daniel There was a discussion about device tree bindings when i posted the kirkwood cpuidle driver, now in drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-kirkwood.c. The conclusion was that pseudo devices, like cpuidle, do not have DT bindings. They can check of_machine_is_compatible(), like cpuidle-calxeda.c does, or they are platform drivers, which is what cpuidle-kirkwood.c is. Even if DT binding was allowed, it again should not be ARM specific. Are coupled idle states ARM specific? Andrew From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: andrew@lunn.ch (Andrew Lunn) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 20:09:08 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 07/15] ARM: cpuidle: add init/exit routine In-Reply-To: <51509873.1010408@linaro.org> References: <1364234140-514-1-git-send-email-daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> <1364234140-514-8-git-send-email-daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> <20130325181038.GA631@lunn.ch> <51509873.1010408@linaro.org> Message-ID: <20130325190908.GC631@lunn.ch> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org > > Please could you add a comment in the code about which piece is > > specific to ARM, because its not obvious to me. Its not like there is > > a reference to WFI for example. It looks like this code could go in > > drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c > > Yes, I agree. At the first glance, the code, as it is, could go in this > file but more ARM specific code will be moved to this ARM generic code > driver like device tree description and couple idle states. The init > function would be more arch specific then. Hi Daniel There was a discussion about device tree bindings when i posted the kirkwood cpuidle driver, now in drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-kirkwood.c. The conclusion was that pseudo devices, like cpuidle, do not have DT bindings. They can check of_machine_is_compatible(), like cpuidle-calxeda.c does, or they are platform drivers, which is what cpuidle-kirkwood.c is. Even if DT binding was allowed, it again should not be ARM specific. Are coupled idle states ARM specific? Andrew