From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: catalin.marinas@arm.com (Catalin Marinas) Date: Fri, 1 May 2015 10:02:02 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] arm64: dts: Add idle-states for Juno In-Reply-To: <20150430171701.GA31834@red-moon> References: <1430402268.2868.20.camel@linaro.org> <554251B4.2030808@arm.com> <1430412035.2868.40.camel@linaro.org> <20150430171701.GA31834@red-moon> Message-ID: <20150501090201.GE27755@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 06:17:01PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 05:40:35PM +0100, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote: > > On Thu, 2015-04-30 at 17:00 +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote: > > > On 30/04/15 14:57, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote: > > > > From: Jon Medhurst > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jon Medhurst > > > > --- > > > > > > > > These have been kicking around out of tree for ages, any reason they > > > > shouldn't be in mainline? > > > > > > One possible reason could be that these values are not tuned(e.g. > > > latency values, can they be same for both clusters ?) > > > > I thought that both clusters being the same was questionable. > > > > > Though these > > > reasons are not blocking and this patch will not cause any > > > functionality break even if is merged as is. > > > > My main purpose with trying to get this merged is so that people using > > Juno for general testing and validation will actually have cpuidle > > running and so potentially find more bugs. > > I am reluctant to enable idle states in the default Juno dts, they > will affect latencies and performance tests significantly. OTOH, I guess they will improve the power benchmarks. IMO, we should place in the DT whatever the hardware and firmware supports. It's up to those doing benchmarks to disable CPU suspend. -- Catalin