From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: kgene.kim@samsung.com (Kukjin Kim) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 19:51:31 -0800 Subject: [PATCH 5/5] ARM: exynos: enable/disable cpuidle when cpu1 is down/up In-Reply-To: <50F551F3.2060400@linaro.org> References: <1357318799-24378-1-git-send-email-daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> <1357318799-24378-5-git-send-email-daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> <50EF3369.2060902@free.fr> <50F551F3.2060400@linaro.org> Message-ID: <00be01cdf52f$1bc907c0$535b1740$@samsung.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Daniel Lezcano wrote: > > On 01/10/2013 11:33 PM, amit daniel kachhap wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Daniel Lezcano > wrote: > >> On 01/10/2013 09:07 PM, amit daniel kachhap wrote: > >>> Hi Daniel, > >> > >> Hi Amit Daniel, > >> > >>> This hotplug noifiers looks fine. I suppose it should add extra state > >>> C1 in cpu0. If it is done like below than for normal cases(when all > >>> cpu's are online) there wont be any statistics for C0 state > >> > >> I guess you meant state 0 which is WFI, right ? > >> C0 state is the intel semantic for cpu fully turned on. > > Yes I meant C0 as wfi > >> > >>> also which > >>> is required. Other patches look good. > >> > >> Ok, that makes sense to have statistics even if they are only doing WFI. > >> > >> Then the patch 4/5 is not ok, no ? > > yes I suppose patch 4 and patch 5 are related and depends how you > > frame patch 5. I think it is better to create C0/C1 sysfs and other > > things in the beginning because it is a filesystem call and may > > increase the cpu hotplug time which is not worth. May be if cpuidle > > framework exposes some API to enable/disable states then it is better. > > > > For patch 1,2 and 3, > > Acked-by: Amit Daniel Kachhap > > Hi Kukjin, > > is it possible to take these patches [1-3/5] ? > Looks OK to me, I will apply with Amit's ack. > The patches [3-4/5] could be ignored. > Probably, you mean [4-5/5] :-) Thanks. - Kukjin