From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Preeti U Murthy Subject: Re: [PATCH V3] cpuidle/powernv: Read target_residency value of idle states from DT if available Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2015 14:25:47 +0530 Message-ID: <54CF3B93.9090507@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <20150202050821.24581.56186.stgit@preeti.in.ibm.com> <1422859164.20278.1.camel@ellerman.id.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1422859164.20278.1.camel@ellerman.id.au> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Michael Ellerman , rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com Cc: stewart@linux.vnet.ibm.com, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On 02/02/2015 12:09 PM, Michael Ellerman wrote: > On Mon, 2015-02-02 at 10:40 +0530, Preeti U Murthy wrote: >> The device tree now exposes the residency values for different idle states. Read >> these values instead of calculating residency from the latency values. The values >> exposed in the DT are validated for optimal power efficiency. However to maintain >> compatibility with the older firmware code which does not expose residency >> values, use default values as a fallback mechanism. While at it, use better >> APIs to parse the powermgmt device tree node so as to avoid endianness >> transformation. >> >> Signed-off-by: Preeti U Murthy >> --- >> Changes from V2: https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/1/27/1054 >> 1. Used APIs to eliminate endianness transformation > > Hi Preeti, > > I thought I was pretty clear when I said you should do that as a follow-up > patch. > > This is now doing too many things, it's not a single logical change, and it's > touching code in arch/powerpc and the driver. Which means neither I nor Rafael > can easily merge it. > > So please go back to the v2 you had. And then do the of_property_count_u32_elems() > changes as separate patches. Yeah I apologize for this; going back to the conversation we had, I realize that I completely overlooked the part where you suggested it as a second patch. Sorry for the inconvenience. Rafael, please ignore the versions sent so far. I shall send out two patches that are logically separated. V2 of this patch that you were requested to pick up needs some more fixes; the patch was not freeing the dynamically allocated data after populating the cpufreq table. Ill fix all of these in the next posting. Thanks Regards Preeti U Murthy > > cheers > > > _______________________________________________ > Linuxppc-dev mailing list > Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org > https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev >