From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
From: daniel.lezcano@linaro.org (Daniel Lezcano)
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 10:41:09 +0200
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] ARM: cpuidle: fix !cpuidle_ops[cpu].init case during
init
In-Reply-To: <20160330161745.7afd6e48@xhacker>
References: <1458796269-6158-1-git-send-email-jszhang@marvell.com>
<1458796269-6158-2-git-send-email-jszhang@marvell.com>
<56F52502.3060308@linaro.org> <20160330151629.0b338365@xhacker>
<56FB89A8.90209@linaro.org> <20160330161745.7afd6e48@xhacker>
Message-ID: <56FB9125.10507@linaro.org>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org
On 03/30/2016 10:17 AM, Jisheng Zhang wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2016 10:09:12 +0200 Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>
>> On 03/30/2016 09:16 AM, Jisheng Zhang wrote:
>>> Hi Daniel,
>>
>> [ ... ]
>>
>> Added Lorenzo and Catalin.
>>
>>>> Hi Jisheng,
>>>>
>>>> this should be handled in the arm_cpuidle_read_ops function.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks for reviewing. After some consideration, I think this patch isn't correct
>>> There may be platforms which doesn't need the init member at all, although
>>> currently I don't see such platforms in mainline, So I'll drop this patch
>>> and send out one v2 only does the optimization.
>>
>> There is an inconsistency between ARM and ARM64. The 'cpu_get_ops', the
>> arm_cpuidle_read_ops from the ARM64 side, returns -EOPNOTSUPP when the
>> init function is not there for cpuidle.
>
> yes.
> arm64's arm_cpuidle_init() returns -EOPNOTSUPP if init callback isn't defined
>
>>
>> I don't think it is a problem, but as ARM/ARM64 are sharing the same
>> cpuidle-arm.c driver it would make sense to unify the behavior between
>> both archs.
>
> yes, agree with you. From "unify" point of view, could I move back the suspend
> callback check and init callback check into arm_cpuidle_init() for arm as V1 does?
Why ? To be consistent with ARM64 ?
--
Linaro.org ? Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook |
Twitter |
Blog