From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com (Lorenzo Pieralisi) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 15:17:09 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] arm64: dts: Add idle-states for Juno In-Reply-To: <1445868751.2807.21.camel@linaro.org> References: <1430402268.2868.20.camel@linaro.org> <9hheggnca1y.fsf@e105922-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <1445868751.2807.21.camel@linaro.org> Message-ID: <20151026151709.GA16145@red-moon> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 02:12:31PM +0000, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote: > On Thu, 2015-10-22 at 14:22 +0100, Punit Agrawal wrote: > > "Jon Medhurst (Tixy)" writes: > > > > > From: Jon Medhurst > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jon Medhurst > > > > Apologies for resurrecting an old thread. > > > > Following the discussion on this thread, even though certain concerns > > were raised, there wasn't any objection to $SUBJECT being merged. > > > > I don't see this patch in any tree; perhaps it's slipped through the > > cracks. > > It did slip through the cracks. Lorenzo's last comment was "I am fine > with enabling the idle states, I need to review and test the idle states > DT data in the patch first though." and I didn't chase things up. > > The patch will need refreshing to add idle for Juno r1. Which will then > probably resurrect the discussion about where the numbers come from for > residency times, and are the same ones for r0 valid on r1 (and r2?). > > In an effort to forestall that I would say: does anyone actually care if > the values are optimal? Juno is a reference platform and powered off > mains, so tuning for the optimum power consumption is pretty pointless. > But because it _is_ used as a reference by people it should at least > have these features enabled, to serve as an example, and for test > coverage. I agree with you here, let me check the entry/exit latencies again to make sure they are reasonably set-up, it is 4.5 material anyway. Thanks, Lorenzo