Re: [PATCH 2/2] ARM: OMAP3: PM: cpuidle: optimize the clkdm idle latency in C1 state

[Kevin Hilman <khilman@ti.com>]

Jean Pihet <jean.pihet@newoldbits.com> writes:

> Hi Kevin,
>
> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 6:29 PM, Kevin Hilman <khilman@ti.com> wrote:
>> jean.pihet@newoldbits.com writes:
>>
>>> From: Jean Pihet <j-pihet@ti.com>
>>>
>>> It is not needed to iterate through all the clock domains of a
>>> power domain in order to allow or deny it to idle.
>>
>> Why?  (I know the answer, but would like it answered here.)
>>
>>> This patch allows or denies only the first registered clock domain
>>> of a power domain, and so optimizes the latency of the low power
>>> code. The functions _cpuidle_allow_idle and _cpuidle_deny_idle are
>>> not used anymore and so are removed.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jean Pihet <j-pihet@ti.com>
>>
>> Other than the changelog update, it looks good but also needs a rebase
>> like the previous patch.
>>
>> After that, I'll add them to my for_3.6/pm/performance branch and queue
>> for v3.6.
> The new series has been sent as '[PATCH 0/3] ARM: OMAP3: PM: optimize
> cpuidle C1 state latency' with the suggested changes (changelog
> updated, rebased on for_3.6/pm/performance).
>
> Note: with the code from the branch the CORE does not idle. The
> optimization changes have been tested OK though.

That's OK, I know the causes of the CORE idle retention problems and
have fixes for those queued up.

Thanks,

Kevin

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html