From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: daniel.lezcano@linaro.org (Daniel Lezcano) Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 17:05:11 +0200 Subject: [PATCH v6 5/5] ACPI : enable ACPI_PROCESSOR_IDLE on ARM64 In-Reply-To: <57714043.5020207@arm.com> References: <1465915719-8409-1-git-send-email-sudeep.holla@arm.com> <1465915719-8409-6-git-send-email-sudeep.holla@arm.com> <5771392B.3080002@linaro.org> <57714043.5020207@arm.com> Message-ID: <577140A7.60904@linaro.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 06/27/2016 05:03 PM, Sudeep Holla wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > On 27/06/16 15:33, Daniel Lezcano wrote: >> On 06/14/2016 04:48 PM, Sudeep Holla wrote: >>> Now that ACPI processor idle driver supports LPI(Low Power Idle), lets >>> enable ACPI_PROCESSOR_IDLE for ARM64 too. >>> >>> This patch just removes the IA64 and X86 dependency on >>> ACPI_PROCESSOR_IDLE >>> >>> Cc: linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org >>> Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" >>> Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla >>> --- >> >> Hi Sudeep, >> >> now that ACPI processor supports ARM64 did you check the >> CPUIDLE_DRIVER_STATE_START trick in the code and its derivative ? >> > > No, that is used only for C-State and ARM64 doesn't support it. > Patch 1/5 puts all the C-State code under #ifdef so that it's not > compiled on ARM64. > >> I deleted the patch 2/5 but there is a place where: >> > > Sorry, I don't follow what you mean by that. I meant I just deleted from my mailbox the patch 2/5, so I can't do inline comment. >> if (max_cstate=0) >> max_cstate=1; >> >> Probably this is because the POLL state is inserted, so there is always >> an idle state. But for ARM, that is not the case. >> > > Yes > >> Also, there are some places where the idle state index begins to 1. I >> think it should be 0 for ARM. >> > > Yes for LPI, it does start from 0. > -- Linaro.org ? Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog