From: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>
To: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
Cc: "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
"linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
Lina Iyer <lina.iyer@linaro.org>,
Russell King <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>,
Will Deacon <Will.Deacon@arm.com>,
Sudeep Holla <Sudeep.Holla@arm.com>,
Catalin Marinas <Catalin.Marinas@arm.com>,
Mark Rutland <Mark.Rutland@arm.com>,
Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@marvell.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] ARM: cpuidle: make cpuidle_ops interfaces ARM64 compliant
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 11:52:17 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20151002105217.GA1533@red-moon> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <560E5076.7020906@linaro.org>
On Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 10:37:58AM +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
[...]
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/cpuidle.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/cpuidle.h
> > index 0f84249..ee36dd4 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/cpuidle.h
> > +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/cpuidle.h
> > @@ -30,8 +30,8 @@ static inline int arm_cpuidle_simple_enter(struct cpuidle_device *dev,
> > struct device_node;
> >
> > struct cpuidle_ops {
> > - int (*suspend)(int cpu, unsigned long arg);
> > - int (*init)(struct device_node *, int cpu);
>
> I don't know the reason why the 'cpu_psci_cpu_init_idle' signature was
> changed. It has before the same signature as this ops.
Short answer, ACPI (ie device_node is useless on ACPI systems, so
there is no point in passing it).
> As in ARM, we can have more than one driver using the cpuidle_ops
> infrastructure, removing the struct device_node * parameter will force
> to add a call to of_get_cpu_node(cpu, NULL) in each driver with a call
> to of_node_put (btw it is missing below in qcom_cpuidle_init), the
> rollback labels and this will lead to duplicated code.
>
> So why not change ARM64 signature instead ?
See above, I will see what I can do and I understand your concern,
it makes sense.
Thanks,
Lorenzo
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com (Lorenzo Pieralisi)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] ARM: cpuidle: make cpuidle_ops interfaces ARM64 compliant
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 11:52:17 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20151002105217.GA1533@red-moon> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <560E5076.7020906@linaro.org>
On Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 10:37:58AM +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
[...]
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/cpuidle.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/cpuidle.h
> > index 0f84249..ee36dd4 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/cpuidle.h
> > +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/cpuidle.h
> > @@ -30,8 +30,8 @@ static inline int arm_cpuidle_simple_enter(struct cpuidle_device *dev,
> > struct device_node;
> >
> > struct cpuidle_ops {
> > - int (*suspend)(int cpu, unsigned long arg);
> > - int (*init)(struct device_node *, int cpu);
>
> I don't know the reason why the 'cpu_psci_cpu_init_idle' signature was
> changed. It has before the same signature as this ops.
Short answer, ACPI (ie device_node is useless on ACPI systems, so
there is no point in passing it).
> As in ARM, we can have more than one driver using the cpuidle_ops
> infrastructure, removing the struct device_node * parameter will force
> to add a call to of_get_cpu_node(cpu, NULL) in each driver with a call
> to of_node_put (btw it is missing below in qcom_cpuidle_init), the
> rollback labels and this will lead to duplicated code.
>
> So why not change ARM64 signature instead ?
See above, I will see what I can do and I understand your concern,
it makes sense.
Thanks,
Lorenzo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-10-02 10:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-10-01 8:58 [PATCH 0/2] Enabling PSCI based idle on ARM 32-bit platforms Lorenzo Pieralisi
2015-10-01 8:58 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2015-10-01 8:58 ` [PATCH 1/2] ARM: cpuidle: make cpuidle_ops interfaces ARM64 compliant Lorenzo Pieralisi
2015-10-01 8:58 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2015-10-02 9:37 ` Daniel Lezcano
2015-10-02 9:37 ` Daniel Lezcano
2015-10-02 10:52 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi [this message]
2015-10-02 10:52 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2015-10-01 8:58 ` [PATCH 2/2] ARM64: kernel: PSCI: move PSCI idle management code to drivers/firmware Lorenzo Pieralisi
2015-10-01 8:58 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20151002105217.GA1533@red-moon \
--to=lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com \
--cc=Catalin.Marinas@arm.com \
--cc=Mark.Rutland@arm.com \
--cc=Sudeep.Holla@arm.com \
--cc=Will.Deacon@arm.com \
--cc=daniel.lezcano@linaro.org \
--cc=jszhang@marvell.com \
--cc=lina.iyer@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@arm.linux.org.uk \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.