From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: daniel.lezcano@linaro.org (Daniel Lezcano) Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 18:08:12 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 0/6] ARM: cpuidle: Unify the ARM64/ARM DT approach In-Reply-To: <7hfv98vnhn.fsf@deeprootsystems.com> References: <1425385777-14766-1-git-send-email-daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> <7hfv98vnhn.fsf@deeprootsystems.com> Message-ID: <5503197C.8030105@linaro.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 03/13/2015 06:03 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote: > Daniel Lezcano writes: > >> There is a big number of cpuidle drivers for the ARM architecture. >> >> These drivers have been cleaned up and grouped into the drivers/cpuidle >> directory to keep track of the changes more easily and ensure the code >> is following the same scheme across the drivers. >> >> That had the benefit of simplifying the code and factor out a lot of common >> parts. Beside that, as the drivers belong to the 'drivers' directory, we had >> to split the arch specific bits and the generic code in order to keep >> everything self contained. The platform driver paradigm was used for this >> purpose. >> >> Unfortunately, this approach is now no longer accepted and a different solution >> must be provided to reach the same goal: one example is the Qualcomm cpuidle >> driver upstreaming attempt [1]. >> >> In the meantime, ARM64 developed a generic cpuidle driver based on DT definition. >> >> The DT definition provides an 'enable-method' to specify one of the cpu >> operations (PSCI, ...). >> >> This patchset unify this driver with ARM32, using the same DT definition. >> >> Thanks with this patchset we can use the 'enable-method' to specify a cpu >> operations, hence get rid of the platform driver approach and go further in the >> cpuidle driver flexibility via the DT. > > I really like that these two are unified now. > > Acked-by: Kevin Hilman Thanks for reviewing the patchset. -- Daniel -- Linaro.org ? Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog