From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: sudeep.holla@arm.com (Sudeep Holla) Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 16:06:46 +0100 Subject: [PATCH v6 5/5] ACPI : enable ACPI_PROCESSOR_IDLE on ARM64 In-Reply-To: <577140A7.60904@linaro.org> 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> <577140A7.60904@linaro.org> Message-ID: <57714106.2040200@arm.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 27/06/16 16:05, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > 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. > Ah ok, anyways LPI always starts from index 0. IIUC that was your main concern. -- Regards, Sudeep