From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kevin Hilman Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ARM: OMAP3: PM: cpuidle: optimize the clkdm idle latency in C1 state Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2012 09:13:03 -0700 Message-ID: <87pq9jt3hs.fsf@ti.com> References: <1336560912-26753-1-git-send-email-j-pihet@ti.com> <1336560912-26753-2-git-send-email-j-pihet@ti.com> <87pq9k1fhd.fsf@ti.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Received: from na3sys009aog131.obsmtp.com ([74.125.149.247]:56400 "EHLO na3sys009aog131.obsmtp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965349Ab2FAQNE convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Jun 2012 12:13:04 -0400 Received: by dadv36 with SMTP id v36so2875432dad.41 for ; Fri, 01 Jun 2012 09:13:02 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: (Jean Pihet's message of "Fri, 1 Jun 2012 17:14:17 +0200") Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: Jean Pihet Cc: Grazvydas Ignotas , linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, Paul Walmsley , Jean Pihet Jean Pihet writes: > Hi Kevin, > > On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 6:29 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote: >> jean.pihet@newoldbits.com writes: >> >>> From: Jean Pihet >>> >>> 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? =C2=A0(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 >> >> Other than the changelog update, it looks good but also needs a reba= se >> like the previous patch. >> >> After that, I'll add them to my for_3.6/pm/performance branch and qu= eue >> 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" i= n the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html