From: Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@ti.com>
To: Kevin Hilman <khilman@linaro.org>
Cc: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ARM: OMAP4: PM: Avoid expensive cpu_suspend() path for all CPU power states except off
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 11:38:30 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5141695E.9070708@ti.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <874ngfrybz.fsf@linaro.org>
On Wednesday 13 March 2013 11:12 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@ti.com> writes:
>
>> Kevin,
>>
>> On Wednesday 13 February 2013 02:25 PM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
>>> Current CPU PM code code make use of common cpu_suspend() path for all the
>>> CPU power states which is not optimal. In fact cpu_suspend() path is needed
>>> only when we put CPU power domain to off state where the CPU context is lost.
>>>
>>> Update the code accordingly so that the expensive cpu_suspend() path
>>> can be avoided for the shallow CPU power states like CPU PD INA/CSWR.
>>>
>>> The patch has been tested on OMAP4430 and OMAP5430(with few out of tree patches)
>>> devices for suspend and CPUidle.
>>>
>>> Cc: Kevin Hilman <khilman@deeprootsystems.com>
>>>
>>> Reported-by: Richard Woodruff <r-woodruff2@ti.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@ti.com>
>>> ---
>>> Update changelog to include testing details as suggested
>>> by Kevin Hilman.
>>>
>> Ping.
>> It can get into rc's but since it is not strict regression,
>> and if it has to wait for 3.10 then I can add this one
>> along with rest of the PM patches posted towards 3.10
>>
>> Either way, let me know.
>
> I have this updated one queued for v3.10 in my PM cleanup branch
> (for_3.10/cleanup/pm)
>
Thanks Kevin.
Regards,
Santosh
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: santosh.shilimkar@ti.com (Santosh Shilimkar)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH v2] ARM: OMAP4: PM: Avoid expensive cpu_suspend() path for all CPU power states except off
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 11:38:30 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5141695E.9070708@ti.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <874ngfrybz.fsf@linaro.org>
On Wednesday 13 March 2013 11:12 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@ti.com> writes:
>
>> Kevin,
>>
>> On Wednesday 13 February 2013 02:25 PM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
>>> Current CPU PM code code make use of common cpu_suspend() path for all the
>>> CPU power states which is not optimal. In fact cpu_suspend() path is needed
>>> only when we put CPU power domain to off state where the CPU context is lost.
>>>
>>> Update the code accordingly so that the expensive cpu_suspend() path
>>> can be avoided for the shallow CPU power states like CPU PD INA/CSWR.
>>>
>>> The patch has been tested on OMAP4430 and OMAP5430(with few out of tree patches)
>>> devices for suspend and CPUidle.
>>>
>>> Cc: Kevin Hilman <khilman@deeprootsystems.com>
>>>
>>> Reported-by: Richard Woodruff <r-woodruff2@ti.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@ti.com>
>>> ---
>>> Update changelog to include testing details as suggested
>>> by Kevin Hilman.
>>>
>> Ping.
>> It can get into rc's but since it is not strict regression,
>> and if it has to wait for 3.10 then I can add this one
>> along with rest of the PM patches posted towards 3.10
>>
>> Either way, let me know.
>
> I have this updated one queued for v3.10 in my PM cleanup branch
> (for_3.10/cleanup/pm)
>
Thanks Kevin.
Regards,
Santosh
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-03-14 6:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-02-13 8:55 [PATCH v2] ARM: OMAP4: PM: Avoid expensive cpu_suspend() path for all CPU power states except off Santosh Shilimkar
2013-02-13 8:55 ` Santosh Shilimkar
2013-03-11 11:09 ` Santosh Shilimkar
2013-03-11 11:09 ` Santosh Shilimkar
2013-03-13 17:42 ` Kevin Hilman
2013-03-13 17:42 ` Kevin Hilman
2013-03-14 6:08 ` Santosh Shilimkar [this message]
2013-03-14 6:08 ` Santosh Shilimkar
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=5141695E.9070708@ti.com \
--to=santosh.shilimkar@ti.com \
--cc=khilman@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-omap@vger.kernel.org \
/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.