[PATCH 0/2] ARM: S3C64xx: cpuidle cleanups

[PATCH 0/2] ARM: S3C64xx: cpuidle cleanups

[Daniel Lezcano]

These couple of patches use the new cpuidle core api to refactor
some part of the code. The first one declares the states directly
in the driver declaration and the second one use the timekeeping
flag to let the cpuidle core to compute the idle time.

I don't have this board, I was not able to test these patches.

Daniel Lezcano (2):
  ARM: s3c64xx: cpuidle - declare the states with the new api
  ARM: s3c64xx: cpuidle - use timekeeping wrapper

 arch/arm/mach-s3c64xx/cpuidle.c |   45 +++++++++++++--------------------------
 1 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)

-- 
1.7.5.4

[PATCH 1/2] ARM: s3c64xx: cpuidle - declare the states with the new api

[Daniel Lezcano]

The states are now part of the cpuidle_driver structure, so we can
declare the states in this structure directly. That saves us an extra
variable declaration and a memcpy.

Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
---
 arch/arm/mach-s3c64xx/cpuidle.c |   33 ++++++++++++++-------------------
 1 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-s3c64xx/cpuidle.c b/arch/arm/mach-s3c64xx/cpuidle.c
index 179460f..2750e54 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-s3c64xx/cpuidle.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-s3c64xx/cpuidle.c
@@ -51,33 +51,28 @@ static int s3c64xx_enter_idle(struct cpuidle_device *dev,
 	return index;
 }
 
-static struct cpuidle_state s3c64xx_cpuidle_set[] = {
-	[0] = {
-		.enter			= s3c64xx_enter_idle,
-		.exit_latency		= 1,
-		.target_residency	= 1,
-		.flags			= CPUIDLE_FLAG_TIME_VALID,
-		.name			= "IDLE",
-		.desc			= "System active, ARM gated",
-	},
-};
+static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct cpuidle_device, s3c64xx_cpuidle_device);
 
 static struct cpuidle_driver s3c64xx_cpuidle_driver = {
-	.name		= "s3c64xx_cpuidle",
-	.owner		= THIS_MODULE,
-	.state_count	= ARRAY_SIZE(s3c64xx_cpuidle_set),
-};
-
-static struct cpuidle_device s3c64xx_cpuidle_device = {
-	.state_count	= ARRAY_SIZE(s3c64xx_cpuidle_set),
+	.name	= "s3c64xx_cpuidle",
+	.owner  = THIS_MODULE,
+	.states = {
+		{
+			.enter            = s3c64xx_enter_idle,
+			.exit_latency     = 1,
+			.target_residency = 1,
+			.flags            = CPUIDLE_FLAG_TIME_VALID,
+			.name             = "IDLE",
+			.desc             = "System active, ARM gated",
+		},
+	},
+	.state_count = 1,
 };
 
 static int __init s3c64xx_init_cpuidle(void)
 {
 	int ret;
 
-	memcpy(s3c64xx_cpuidle_driver.states, s3c64xx_cpuidle_set,
-	       sizeof(s3c64xx_cpuidle_set));
 	cpuidle_register_driver(&s3c64xx_cpuidle_driver);
 
 	ret = cpuidle_register_device(&s3c64xx_cpuidle_device);
-- 
1.7.5.4

[PATCH 2/2] ARM: s3c64xx: cpuidle - use timekeeping wrapper

[Daniel Lezcano]

The timekeeping is computed from the cpuidle core if we set
the .en_core_tk_irqen flag. Let's use it and remove the duplicated
code.

Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
---
 arch/arm/mach-s3c64xx/cpuidle.c |   12 +-----------
 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-s3c64xx/cpuidle.c b/arch/arm/mach-s3c64xx/cpuidle.c
index 2750e54..acb197c 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-s3c64xx/cpuidle.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-s3c64xx/cpuidle.c
@@ -27,12 +27,7 @@ static int s3c64xx_enter_idle(struct cpuidle_device *dev,
 			      struct cpuidle_driver *drv,
 			      int index)
 {
-	struct timeval before, after;
 	unsigned long tmp;
-	int idle_time;
-
-	local_irq_disable();
-	do_gettimeofday(&before);
 
 	/* Setup PWRCFG to enter idle mode */
 	tmp = __raw_readl(S3C64XX_PWR_CFG);
@@ -42,12 +37,6 @@ static int s3c64xx_enter_idle(struct cpuidle_device *dev,
 
 	cpu_do_idle();
 
-	do_gettimeofday(&after);
-	local_irq_enable();
-	idle_time = (after.tv_sec - before.tv_sec) * USEC_PER_SEC +
-		    (after.tv_usec - before.tv_usec);
-
-	dev->last_residency = idle_time;
 	return index;
 }
 
@@ -56,6 +45,7 @@ static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct cpuidle_device, s3c64xx_cpuidle_device);
 static struct cpuidle_driver s3c64xx_cpuidle_driver = {
 	.name	= "s3c64xx_cpuidle",
 	.owner  = THIS_MODULE,
+	.en_core_tk_irqen = 1,
 	.states = {
 		{
 			.enter            = s3c64xx_enter_idle,
-- 
1.7.5.4

[PATCH 0/2] ARM: S3C64xx: cpuidle cleanups

[Daniel Lezcano]

On 05/09/2012 04:08 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> These couple of patches use the new cpuidle core api to refactor
> some part of the code. The first one declares the states directly
> in the driver declaration and the second one use the timekeeping
> flag to let the cpuidle core to compute the idle time.
>
> I don't have this board, I was not able to test these patches.
>
> Daniel Lezcano (2):
>    ARM: s3c64xx: cpuidle - declare the states with the new api
>    ARM: s3c64xx: cpuidle - use timekeeping wrapper
>

Are these patches ok for inclusion ?

Thanks
-- Daniel


-- 
  <http://www.linaro.org/>  Linaro.org ? Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro:<http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro>  Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg>  Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/>  Blog

[PATCH 0/2] ARM: S3C64xx: cpuidle cleanups

[Heiko Stübner]

Am Montag, 14. Mai 2012, 01:51:00 schrieb Daniel Lezcano:
> On 05/09/2012 04:08 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> > These couple of patches use the new cpuidle core api to refactor
> > some part of the code. The first one declares the states directly
> > in the driver declaration and the second one use the timekeeping
> > flag to let the cpuidle core to compute the idle time.
> > 
> > I don't have this board, I was not able to test these patches.
> > 
> > Daniel Lezcano (2):
> >    ARM: s3c64xx: cpuidle - declare the states with the new api
> >    ARM: s3c64xx: cpuidle - use timekeeping wrapper
> 
> Are these patches ok for inclusion ?

you might want to include the maintainer

	Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com>

and the samsung list

	linux-samsung-soc at vger.kernel.org

into your recipients


Heiko

[PATCH 0/2] ARM: S3C64xx: cpuidle cleanups

[Mark Brown]

On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 10:52:46AM +0200, Heiko St??bner wrote:
> Am Montag, 14. Mai 2012, 01:51:00 schrieb Daniel Lezcano:
> > On 05/09/2012 04:08 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:

> > Are these patches ok for inclusion ?

> you might want to include the maintainer

> 	Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com>

> and the samsung list

> 	linux-samsung-soc at vger.kernel.org

> into your recipients

Also the original author (me).

[PATCH 0/2] ARM: S3C64xx: cpuidle cleanups

[Daniel Lezcano]

On 05/14/2012 10:57 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 10:52:46AM +0200, Heiko St??bner wrote:
>> Am Montag, 14. Mai 2012, 01:51:00 schrieb Daniel Lezcano:
>>> On 05/09/2012 04:08 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>
>>> Are these patches ok for inclusion ?
>
>> you might want to include the maintainer
>
>> 	Kukjin Kim<kgene.kim@samsung.com>
>
>> and the samsung list
>
>> 	linux-samsung-soc at vger.kernel.org
>
>> into your recipients
>
> Also the original author (me).

Oh, ok. I thought I did it, sorry.

   -- Daniel

-- 
  <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org ? Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog

[PATCH 0/2] ARM: S3C64xx: cpuidle cleanups

[Kukjin Kim]

On 05/14/12 18:22, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 05/14/2012 10:57 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
>> On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 10:52:46AM +0200, Heiko St??bner wrote:
>>> Am Montag, 14. Mai 2012, 01:51:00 schrieb Daniel Lezcano:
>>>> On 05/09/2012 04:08 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>
>>>> Are these patches ok for inclusion ?
>>
>>> you might want to include the maintainer
>>
>>> Kukjin Kim<kgene.kim@samsung.com>
>>
>>> and the samsung list
>>
>>> linux-samsung-soc at vger.kernel.org
>>
>>> into your recipients
>>
>> Also the original author (me).
>
> Oh, ok. I thought I did it, sorry.
>
Heiko, thanks :-)

Daniel, could you please re-submit this series with adding me and Mark 
Brown in Cc. I couldn't find your patches in my mailbox...

Thanks.

Best regards,
Kgene.
--
Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com>, Senior Engineer,
SW Solution Development Team, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.

[PATCH 0/2] ARM: S3C64xx: cpuidle cleanups

[Daniel Lezcano]

On 05/14/2012 03:51 PM, Kukjin Kim wrote:
> On 05/14/12 18:22, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> On 05/14/2012 10:57 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
>>> On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 10:52:46AM +0200, Heiko St??bner wrote:
>>>> Am Montag, 14. Mai 2012, 01:51:00 schrieb Daniel Lezcano:
>>>>> On 05/09/2012 04:08 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Are these patches ok for inclusion ?
>>>
>>>> you might want to include the maintainer
>>>
>>>> Kukjin Kim<kgene.kim@samsung.com>
>>>
>>>> and the samsung list
>>>
>>>> linux-samsung-soc at vger.kernel.org
>>>
>>>> into your recipients
>>>
>>> Also the original author (me).
>>
>> Oh, ok. I thought I did it, sorry.
>>
> Heiko, thanks :-)
>
> Daniel, could you please re-submit this series with adding me and Mark
> Brown in Cc. I couldn't find your patches in my mailbox...

Sure.

-- 
  <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org ? Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog

[PATCH 0/2] ARM: S3C64xx: cpuidle cleanups

[Daniel Lezcano]

On 05/14/2012 10:57 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 10:52:46AM +0200, Heiko St??bner wrote:
>> Am Montag, 14. Mai 2012, 01:51:00 schrieb Daniel Lezcano:
>>> On 05/09/2012 04:08 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>> Are these patches ok for inclusion ?
>> you might want to include the maintainer
>> 	Kukjin Kim<kgene.kim@samsung.com>
>> and the samsung list
>> 	linux-samsung-soc at vger.kernel.org
>> into your recipients
> Also the original author (me).

Mark,

I noticed you are not in the cpuidle.c header file neither in the 
MAINTAINERS entry for the s3c64xx.
Just FYI.

Thanks
-- Daniel


-- 
  <http://www.linaro.org/>  Linaro.org ? Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro:<http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro>  Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg>  Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/>  Blog

[PATCH 0/2] ARM: S3C64xx: cpuidle cleanups

[Daniel Lezcano]

These couple of patches use the new cpuidle core api to refactor
some part of the code. The first one declares the states directly
in the driver declaration and the second one use the timekeeping
flag to let the cpuidle core to compute the idle time.

I don't have this board, I was not able to test these patches.

Daniel Lezcano (2):
  ARM: s3c64xx: cpuidle - declare the states with the new api
  ARM: s3c64xx: cpuidle - use timekeeping wrapper

 arch/arm/mach-s3c64xx/cpuidle.c |   45 +++++++++++++--------------------------
 1 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)

-- 
1.7.5.4

[PATCH 1/2] ARM: s3c64xx: cpuidle - declare the states with the new api

[Daniel Lezcano]

The states are now part of the cpuidle_driver structure, so we can
declare the states in this structure directly. That saves us an extra
variable declaration and a memcpy.

Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
---
 arch/arm/mach-s3c64xx/cpuidle.c |   33 ++++++++++++++-------------------
 1 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-s3c64xx/cpuidle.c b/arch/arm/mach-s3c64xx/cpuidle.c
index 179460f..2750e54 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-s3c64xx/cpuidle.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-s3c64xx/cpuidle.c
@@ -51,33 +51,28 @@ static int s3c64xx_enter_idle(struct cpuidle_device *dev,
 	return index;
 }
 
-static struct cpuidle_state s3c64xx_cpuidle_set[] = {
-	[0] = {
-		.enter			= s3c64xx_enter_idle,
-		.exit_latency		= 1,
-		.target_residency	= 1,
-		.flags			= CPUIDLE_FLAG_TIME_VALID,
-		.name			= "IDLE",
-		.desc			= "System active, ARM gated",
-	},
-};
+static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct cpuidle_device, s3c64xx_cpuidle_device);
 
 static struct cpuidle_driver s3c64xx_cpuidle_driver = {
-	.name		= "s3c64xx_cpuidle",
-	.owner		= THIS_MODULE,
-	.state_count	= ARRAY_SIZE(s3c64xx_cpuidle_set),
-};
-
-static struct cpuidle_device s3c64xx_cpuidle_device = {
-	.state_count	= ARRAY_SIZE(s3c64xx_cpuidle_set),
+	.name	= "s3c64xx_cpuidle",
+	.owner  = THIS_MODULE,
+	.states = {
+		{
+			.enter            = s3c64xx_enter_idle,
+			.exit_latency     = 1,
+			.target_residency = 1,
+			.flags            = CPUIDLE_FLAG_TIME_VALID,
+			.name             = "IDLE",
+			.desc             = "System active, ARM gated",
+		},
+	},
+	.state_count = 1,
 };
 
 static int __init s3c64xx_init_cpuidle(void)
 {
 	int ret;
 
-	memcpy(s3c64xx_cpuidle_driver.states, s3c64xx_cpuidle_set,
-	       sizeof(s3c64xx_cpuidle_set));
 	cpuidle_register_driver(&s3c64xx_cpuidle_driver);
 
 	ret = cpuidle_register_device(&s3c64xx_cpuidle_device);
-- 
1.7.5.4

[PATCH 1/2] ARM: s3c64xx: cpuidle - declare the states with the new api

[Kukjin Kim]

Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> 
> The states are now part of the cpuidle_driver structure, so we can
> declare the states in this structure directly. That saves us an extra
> variable declaration and a memcpy.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
> ---
>  arch/arm/mach-s3c64xx/cpuidle.c |   33 ++++++++++++++-------------------
>  1 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-s3c64xx/cpuidle.c b/arch/arm/mach-
> s3c64xx/cpuidle.c
> index 179460f..2750e54 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-s3c64xx/cpuidle.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-s3c64xx/cpuidle.c
> @@ -51,33 +51,28 @@ static int s3c64xx_enter_idle(struct cpuidle_device
> *dev,
>  	return index;
>  }
> 
> -static struct cpuidle_state s3c64xx_cpuidle_set[] = {
> -	[0] = {
> -		.enter			= s3c64xx_enter_idle,
> -		.exit_latency		= 1,
> -		.target_residency	= 1,
> -		.flags			= CPUIDLE_FLAG_TIME_VALID,
> -		.name			= "IDLE",
> -		.desc			= "System active, ARM gated",
> -	},
> -};
> +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct cpuidle_device, s3c64xx_cpuidle_device);
> 
>  static struct cpuidle_driver s3c64xx_cpuidle_driver = {
> -	.name		= "s3c64xx_cpuidle",
> -	.owner		= THIS_MODULE,
> -	.state_count	= ARRAY_SIZE(s3c64xx_cpuidle_set),
> -};
> -
> -static struct cpuidle_device s3c64xx_cpuidle_device = {
> -	.state_count	= ARRAY_SIZE(s3c64xx_cpuidle_set),
> +	.name	= "s3c64xx_cpuidle",
> +	.owner  = THIS_MODULE,

I'd preferred to use original 'tab'

> +	.states = {
> +		{
> +			.enter            = s3c64xx_enter_idle,
> +			.exit_latency     = 1,
> +			.target_residency = 1,
> +			.flags            = CPUIDLE_FLAG_TIME_VALID,
> +			.name             = "IDLE",
> +			.desc             = "System active, ARM gated",
> +		},
> +	},
> +	.state_count = 1,
>  };
> 
>  static int __init s3c64xx_init_cpuidle(void)
>  {
>  	int ret;
> 
> -	memcpy(s3c64xx_cpuidle_driver.states, s3c64xx_cpuidle_set,
> -	       sizeof(s3c64xx_cpuidle_set));
>  	cpuidle_register_driver(&s3c64xx_cpuidle_driver);
> 
>  	ret = cpuidle_register_device(&s3c64xx_cpuidle_device);
> --
> 1.7.5.4


Thanks.

Best regards,
Kgene.
--
Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com>, Senior Engineer,
SW Solution Development Team, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.

[PATCH 1/2] ARM: s3c64xx: cpuidle - declare the states with the new api

[Mark Brown]

On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 04:06:16PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> The states are now part of the cpuidle_driver structure, so we can
> declare the states in this structure directly. That saves us an extra
> variable declaration and a memcpy.

Tested-by: Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20120517/5806f7b3/attachment.sig>

[PATCH 1/2] ARM: s3c64xx: cpuidle - declare the states with the new api

[Kukjin Kim]

On 05/17/12 21:28, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 04:06:16PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> The states are now part of the cpuidle_driver structure, so we can
>> declare the states in this structure directly. That saves us an extra
>> variable declaration and a memcpy.
>
> Tested-by: Mark Brown<broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>

Thanks for testing, applied this series.

Best regards,
Kgene.
--
Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com>, Senior Engineer,
SW Solution Development Team, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.