linux-next: manual merge of the cpuidle-cons tree with the arm-soc tree

linux-next: manual merge of the cpuidle-cons tree with the arm-soc tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi Rob,

Today's linux-next merge of the cpuidle-cons tree got a conflict in
arch/arm/mach-at91/cpuidle.c between commit 00482a4078f4 ("ARM: at91:
implement the standby function for pm/cpuidle") from the arm-soc tree and
commit 7a1f6e72dce1 ("ARM: at91: Consolidate time keeping and irq
enable") from the cpuidle-cons tree.

I fixed it up (I think - see below) and can carry the fix as necessary.
-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr at canb.auug.org.au

diff --cc arch/arm/mach-at91/cpuidle.c
index 555d956,d40b3f3..0000000
--- a/arch/arm/mach-at91/cpuidle.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-at91/cpuidle.c
@@@ -37,23 -33,15 +33,8 @@@ static int at91_enter_idle(struct cpuid
  			struct cpuidle_driver *drv,
  			       int index)
  {
- 	struct timeval before, after;
- 	int idle_time;
- 
- 	local_irq_disable();
- 	do_gettimeofday(&before);
- 	if (index == 0)
- 		/* Wait for interrupt state */
- 		cpu_do_idle();
- 	else if (index == 1)
- 		at91_standby();
 -	u32 saved_lpr;
 -
 -	__asm__("b 1f; .align 5; 1:\n"
 -	"	mcr p15, 0, r0, c7, c10, 4");	/* drain write buffer */
 -
 -	saved_lpr = sdram_selfrefresh_enable();
 -	cpu_do_idle();
 -	sdram_selfrefresh_disable(saved_lpr);
++	at91_standby();
  
- 	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;
  }
  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20120309/bef900de/attachment-0001.sig>

linux-next: manual merge of the cpuidle-cons tree with the arm-soc tree

[Rob Lee]

Hello Stephen,

Yes, your resolution looks correct to me.

Thanks,
Rob Lee


On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 1:37 AM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> Hi Rob,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the cpuidle-cons tree got a conflict in
> arch/arm/mach-at91/cpuidle.c between commit 00482a4078f4 ("ARM: at91:
> implement the standby function for pm/cpuidle") from the arm-soc tree and
> commit 7a1f6e72dce1 ("ARM: at91: Consolidate time keeping and irq
> enable") from the cpuidle-cons tree.
>
> I fixed it up (I think - see below) and can carry the fix as necessary.
> --
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?sfr at canb.auug.org.au
>
> diff --cc arch/arm/mach-at91/cpuidle.c
> index 555d956,d40b3f3..0000000
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-at91/cpuidle.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-at91/cpuidle.c
> @@@ -37,23 -33,15 +33,8 @@@ static int at91_enter_idle(struct cpuid
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?struct cpuidle_driver *drv,
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? int index)
> ?{
> - ? ? ? struct timeval before, after;
> - ? ? ? int idle_time;
> -
> - ? ? ? local_irq_disable();
> - ? ? ? do_gettimeofday(&before);
> - ? ? ? if (index == 0)
> - ? ? ? ? ? ? ? /* Wait for interrupt state */
> - ? ? ? ? ? ? ? cpu_do_idle();
> - ? ? ? else if (index == 1)
> - ? ? ? ? ? ? ? at91_standby();
> ?- ? ? ?u32 saved_lpr;
> ?-
> ?- ? ? ?__asm__("b 1f; .align 5; 1:\n"
> ?- ? ? ?" ? ? ? mcr p15, 0, r0, c7, c10, 4"); ? /* drain write buffer */
> ?-
> ?- ? ? ?saved_lpr = sdram_selfrefresh_enable();
> ?- ? ? ?cpu_do_idle();
> ?- ? ? ?sdram_selfrefresh_disable(saved_lpr);
> ++ ? ? ?at91_standby();
>
> - ? ? ? 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;
> ?}
>

linux-next: manual merge of the cpuidle-cons tree with the arm-soc tree

[Daniel Lezcano]

On 03/09/2012 11:26 PM, Rob Lee wrote:
> Hello Stephen,
>
> Yes, your resolution looks correct to me.

For me too.

Thanks
   -- Daniel


> On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 1:37 AM, Stephen Rothwell<sfr@canb.auug.org.au>  wrote:
>> Hi Rob,
>>
>> Today's linux-next merge of the cpuidle-cons tree got a conflict in
>> arch/arm/mach-at91/cpuidle.c between commit 00482a4078f4 ("ARM: at91:
>> implement the standby function for pm/cpuidle") from the arm-soc tree and
>> commit 7a1f6e72dce1 ("ARM: at91: Consolidate time keeping and irq
>> enable") from the cpuidle-cons tree.
>>
>> I fixed it up (I think - see below) and can carry the fix as necessary.
>> --
>> Cheers,
>> Stephen Rothwell                    sfr at canb.auug.org.au
>>
>> diff --cc arch/arm/mach-at91/cpuidle.c
>> index 555d956,d40b3f3..0000000
>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-at91/cpuidle.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-at91/cpuidle.c
>> @@@ -37,23 -33,15 +33,8 @@@ static int at91_enter_idle(struct cpuid
>>                         struct cpuidle_driver *drv,
>>                                int index)
>>   {
>> -       struct timeval before, after;
>> -       int idle_time;
>> -
>> -       local_irq_disable();
>> -       do_gettimeofday(&before);
>> -       if (index == 0)
>> -               /* Wait for interrupt state */
>> -               cpu_do_idle();
>> -       else if (index == 1)
>> -               at91_standby();
>>   -      u32 saved_lpr;
>>   -
>>   -      __asm__("b 1f; .align 5; 1:\n"
>>   -      "       mcr p15, 0, r0, c7, c10, 4");   /* drain write buffer */
>>   -
>>   -      saved_lpr = sdram_selfrefresh_enable();
>>   -      cpu_do_idle();
>>   -      sdram_selfrefresh_disable(saved_lpr);
>> ++      at91_standby();
>>
>> -       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;
>>   }
>>


-- 
  <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

linux-next: manual merge of the cpuidle-cons tree with the arm-soc tree

[Nicolas Ferre]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 03/09/2012 08:37 AM, Stephen Rothwell :
> Hi Rob,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the cpuidle-cons tree got a conflict
> in arch/arm/mach-at91/cpuidle.c between commit 00482a4078f4 ("ARM:
> at91: implement the standby function for pm/cpuidle") from the
> arm-soc tree and commit 7a1f6e72dce1 ("ARM: at91: Consolidate time
> keeping and irq enable") from the cpuidle-cons tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (I think - see below) and can carry the fix as
> necessary.

Yes: resolution correct. Please carry it.

Thanks to Rob and Daniel for their answers.

Best regards,
- -- 
Nicolas Ferre
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPXh7HAAoJEAf03oE53VmQSQwH/15D3okPxJSEiH0k8IFt6Df0
RDY/CdaGYDllGMq7Yc1LiQAPrlHkv+gFNAJkhH8aJvC603pYBFGIa5IPLeZEE+XD
MkXiO7pQAOdGtojqSrZI8Sp0kxtfdR6QlNu5o518yvlKIkxbWJoXdVty9+MuciOv
GOR+164hJtlr4fLLg7bTzsdnxquDVBBbks9qLhSYEQBEuNkgXKgNfdMouwVI/Zuj
sX9DSKnVVm5LS/rrq888JRPPtBf8/HkmOeFRWKktq7Q8WldQbBI79vj01osH++jf
rwDiM/CSC0nhXY0IWEof+Hz1mSinM07XGZglDYwqI1ca7HId2C/txaFI3NtcC7A=
=rZpG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

linux-next: manual merge of the cpuidle-cons tree with the arm-soc tree

[Rob Lee]

Arnd, Stephen, Nicolas, Daniel,

On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 11:05 AM, Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@atmel.com> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 03/09/2012 08:37 AM, Stephen Rothwell :
>> Hi Rob,
>>
>> Today's linux-next merge of the cpuidle-cons tree got a conflict
>> in arch/arm/mach-at91/cpuidle.c between commit 00482a4078f4 ("ARM:
>> at91: implement the standby function for pm/cpuidle") from the
>> arm-soc tree and commit 7a1f6e72dce1 ("ARM: at91: Consolidate time
>> keeping and irq enable") from the cpuidle-cons tree.
>>
>> I fixed it up (I think - see below) and can carry the fix as
>> necessary.
>
> Yes: resolution correct. Please carry it.
>

Who should carry this fixup and related necessary at91 changes?  Me?
FYI, my at91 changes are dependent on my core cpuidle change, but my
core cpuidle changes do not require any at91 changes as the at91 and
other platform changes were only made to consolidate duplicate code.

Best Regards,
Rob

> Thanks to Rob and Daniel for their answers.
>

Thank you as well Nicolas.

> Best regards,
> - --
> Nicolas Ferre
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPXh7HAAoJEAf03oE53VmQSQwH/15D3okPxJSEiH0k8IFt6Df0
> RDY/CdaGYDllGMq7Yc1LiQAPrlHkv+gFNAJkhH8aJvC603pYBFGIa5IPLeZEE+XD
> MkXiO7pQAOdGtojqSrZI8Sp0kxtfdR6QlNu5o518yvlKIkxbWJoXdVty9+MuciOv
> GOR+164hJtlr4fLLg7bTzsdnxquDVBBbks9qLhSYEQBEuNkgXKgNfdMouwVI/Zuj
> sX9DSKnVVm5LS/rrq888JRPPtBf8/HkmOeFRWKktq7Q8WldQbBI79vj01osH++jf
> rwDiM/CSC0nhXY0IWEof+Hz1mSinM07XGZglDYwqI1ca7HId2C/txaFI3NtcC7A=
> =rZpG
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

linux-next: manual merge of the cpuidle-cons tree with the arm-soc tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi Rob,

On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 12:03:48 -0500 Rob Lee <rob.lee@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 11:05 AM, Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@atmel.com> wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > On 03/09/2012 08:37 AM, Stephen Rothwell :
> >>
> >> Today's linux-next merge of the cpuidle-cons tree got a conflict
> >> in arch/arm/mach-at91/cpuidle.c between commit 00482a4078f4 ("ARM:
> >> at91: implement the standby function for pm/cpuidle") from the
> >> arm-soc tree and commit 7a1f6e72dce1 ("ARM: at91: Consolidate time
> >> keeping and irq enable") from the cpuidle-cons tree.
> >>
> >> I fixed it up (I think - see below) and can carry the fix as
> >> necessary.
> >
> > Yes: resolution correct. Please carry it.
> 
> Who should carry this fixup and related necessary at91 changes?  Me?
> FYI, my at91 changes are dependent on my core cpuidle change, but my
> core cpuidle changes do not require any at91 changes as the at91 and
> other platform changes were only made to consolidate duplicate code.

I will carry the fixup and Linus will presumably do the same fix when he
merges these trees in his tree.  I am not sure what you mean by "related
at91 changes".

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr at canb.auug.org.au
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20120313/89c5e509/attachment.sig>

linux-next: manual merge of the cpuidle-cons tree with the arm-soc tree

[Rob Lee]

On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 6:06 PM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> Hi Rob,
>
> On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 12:03:48 -0500 Rob Lee <rob.lee@linaro.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 11:05 AM, Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@atmel.com> wrote:
>> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> > Hash: SHA1
>> >
>> > On 03/09/2012 08:37 AM, Stephen Rothwell :
>> >>
>> >> Today's linux-next merge of the cpuidle-cons tree got a conflict
>> >> in arch/arm/mach-at91/cpuidle.c between commit 00482a4078f4 ("ARM:
>> >> at91: implement the standby function for pm/cpuidle") from the
>> >> arm-soc tree and commit 7a1f6e72dce1 ("ARM: at91: Consolidate time
>> >> keeping and irq enable") from the cpuidle-cons tree.
>> >>
>> >> I fixed it up (I think - see below) and can carry the fix as
>> >> necessary.
>> >
>> > Yes: resolution correct. Please carry it.
>>
>> Who should carry this fixup and related necessary at91 changes? ?Me?
>> FYI, my at91 changes are dependent on my core cpuidle change, but my
>> core cpuidle changes do not require any at91 changes as the at91 and
>> other platform changes were only made to consolidate duplicate code.
>
> I will carry the fixup and Linus will presumably do the same fix when he
> merges these trees in his tree. ?I am not sure what you mean by "related
> at91 changes".
>

Thanks Stephen.  By "related changes" I just meant that if I were to
make a branch to carry the fixup, I'd need to all merge in the at91
related changes that are on linux-next but not on an rc tag yet.  But
please ignore this statement if it doesn't make sense.  I'm not yet
knowledgeable on the workflow once submitted patchsets reach this
level.

> --
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?sfr at canb.auug.org.au