From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: sudeep.holla@arm.com (Sudeep Holla) Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2016 16:19:25 +0100 Subject: [PATCH v8 0/6] ACPI / processor_idle: Add ACPI v6.0 LPI support In-Reply-To: <20160708144307.GH3784@red-moon> References: <1467911451-24731-1-git-send-email-sudeep.holla@arm.com> <577F88C8.8010209@arm.com> <20160708144307.GH3784@red-moon> Message-ID: <577FC47D.4090801@arm.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 08/07/16 15:43, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 12:04:40PM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote: >> >> >> 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. > > CPU_PM_CPU_IDLE_ENTER() ? Anyway, that's really not a problem IMO, > it makes sense to at least mention CPU PM in it given that's what > the CPUIDLE enter function is wrapped within. > Looks even better IMO, Rafael if you have no objection, I will change to CPU_PM_CPU_IDLE_ENTER ? -- Regards, Sudeep