[PATCH 4/8] ARM: vexpress: use generic cpu idle function for wfi

[sanjay.rawat@linaro.org (Sanjay Singh Rawat)]

Pawel, Nicolas,

Thanks for the clarification :), dropping.

sanjay

On Tuesday 11 June 2013 09:00 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jun 2013, Pawel Moll wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 2013-06-11 at 06:33 +0100, Sanjay Singh Rawat wrote:
>>>>> use cpu_do_idle for entering the wfi mode.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Sanjay Singh Rawat <sanjay.rawat@linaro.org>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>    arch/arm/mach-vexpress/hotplug.c |    3 ++-
>>>>>    1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-vexpress/hotplug.c b/arch/arm/mach-vexpress/hotplug.c
>>>>> index f0ce6b8..b3dffc2 100644
>>>>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-vexpress/hotplug.c
>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-vexpress/hotplug.c
>>>>> @@ -60,7 +60,8 @@ static inline void platform_do_lowpower(unsigned int cpu, int *spurious)
>>>>>    	 * code will have already disabled interrupts
>>>>>    	 */
>>>>>    	for (;;) {
>>>>> -		wfi();
>>>>> +		/* enter WFI mode */
>>>>> +		cpu_do_idle();
>>>>>
>>>>>    		if (pen_release == cpu_logical_map(cpu)) {
>>>>>    			/*
>>>>
>>>> I probably don't get the whole picture, but may I ask what is the
>>>> rationale behind this change? As in: why cpu_do_idle() is better?
>>>
>>> commit: 8553cb67d2318db327071018fc81084cbabccc46 explains that
>>
>> Oh, I've noticed the dsb there, I'm just asking why is it necessary in
>> the cpu_die() case? The core is going down anyway, it left the coherency
>> domain and we could cut the power now (if only it was possible). All
>> cache maintenance (which undoubtedly included dsb) has been long done.
>>
>> Now, don't get me wrong - I'm not saying it's wrong to do the dsb. I
>> simply would like to know if and why is required (I'm admitting my
>> ignorance here ;-) But if you simply grep-ed for "wfi()" in the whole
>> kernel and automatically replaced them with "cpu_do_idle()", it doesn't
>> make sense.
>
> That's my feeling too.  There is a semantic difference between calling
> cpu_do_idle() and executing a WFI inline.  I'd use cpu_do_idle() only in
> those cases where the call is expected to return and keep the inlined
> WFI otherwise (with the added DSB when necessary which is not all cases
> as explained above).
>
> Nicolas
>