From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: sudeep.holla@arm.com (Sudeep Holla) Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2016 12:04:40 +0100 Subject: [PATCH v8 0/6] ACPI / processor_idle: Add ACPI v6.0 LPI support In-Reply-To: References: <1467911451-24731-1-git-send-email-sudeep.holla@arm.com> Message-ID: <577F88C8.8010209@arm.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 07/07/16 22:02, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 7:10 PM, Sudeep Holla wrote: >> ACPI 6.0 introduced LPI(Low Power Idle) states that provides an alternate >> method to describe processor idle states. It extends the specification >> to allow the expression of idle states like C-states selectable by the >> OSPM when a processor goes idle, but may affect more than one processor, >> and may affect other system components. >> >> LPI extensions leverages the processor container device(again introduced >> in ACPI 6.0) allowing to express which parts of the system are affected >> by a given LPI state. It defines the local power states for each node >> in a hierarchical processor topology. The OSPM can use _LPI object to >> select a local power state for each level of processor hierarchy in the >> system. They used to produce a composite power state request that is >> presented to the platform by the OSPM. >> >> Since multiple processors affect the idle state for any non-leaf hierarchy >> node, coordination of idle state requests between the processors is >> required. ACPI supports two different coordination schemes: Platform >> coordinated and OS initiated. >> >> This series aims at providing basic and initial support for platform >> coordinated LPI states. >> >> v7[7]->v8: >> - Replaced HAVE_GENERIC_CPUIDLE_ENTER with CPU_IDLE_ENTER_WRAPPED >> macro, which is more cleaner and definately less confusing :) >> (Thanks to Rafael for the suggestion) > > Patches [3-6/6] definitely look a lot cleaner to me now. :-) > > That said, the name of the macro I suggested was just an example, so > if people don't like this one, it'd be fine to change it as far as I'm > concerned. > I can think of addition to indicate it's pm notifiers wrapper. i.e. CPU_IDLE_ENTER_PM_NOTIFIERS_WRAPPED. Is it too long ? I am happy with the way it is too. -- Regards, Sudeep