From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: kgene.kim@samsung.com (Kukjin Kim) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 00:28:15 +0900 Subject: [PATCH] ARM: EXYNOS: mcpm: Don't rely on firmware's secondary_cpu_start In-Reply-To: References: <1402090985-8061-1-git-send-email-dianders@chromium.org> <20140607181221.GB25068@e102568-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <20140609223831.GB16889@e102568-lin.cambridge.arm.com> Message-ID: <5398758F.4080306@samsung.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 06/12/14 00:19, Doug Anderson wrote: > Chander, > > On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 9:52 PM, Chander Kashyap wrote: >> Hi Doug, >> >> On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 9:19 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote: >>> On Tue, 10 Jun 2014, Doug Anderson wrote: >>> >>>> My S-state knowledge is not strong, but I believe that Lorenzo's >>>> questions matter if we're using S2 for CPUidle (where we actually turn >>>> off power and hot unplug CPUs) but not when we're using S1 for CPUidle >>>> (where we just enter WFI/WFE). >>>> >> >> No Its not plain WFI. >> >> All cores in Exynos5420 can be powered off independently. >> This functionality has been tested. >> >> Below is the link for the posted patches. >> >> https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/6/10/194 >> >> And as Nicolas wrote, these patches need MCPM for that. > > Most excellent! I should have been more clear that I only knew about > how CPUidle worked in our local production kernel. There I'm pretty > sure CPUidle is just WFI/WFE. If you've got patches to do better then > that's great! > > ...can you confirm that my patch doesn't interfere with your improved > CPUidle? It's been Acked by Nicolas (thanks!) so I'd imagine it will > land shortly. Kukjin: I assume you'll be taking this? > Sure, I will ;-) Thanks, Kukjin