From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: punit.agrawal@arm.com (Punit Agrawal)
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 17:45:10 +0000
Subject: [PATCH] arm64: dts: Add idle-states for Juno
In-Reply-To: <20151026151709.GA16145@red-moon> (Lorenzo Pieralisi's message of
 "Mon, 26 Oct 2015 15:17:09 +0000")
References: <1430402268.2868.20.camel@linaro.org>
 <9hheggnca1y.fsf@e105922-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
 <1445868751.2807.21.camel@linaro.org>
 <20151026151709.GA16145@red-moon>
Message-ID: <9hh7fl8lie1.fsf@e105922-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com> writes:

> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 02:12:31PM +0000, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote:
>> On Thu, 2015-10-22 at 14:22 +0100, Punit Agrawal wrote:
>> > "Jon Medhurst (Tixy)" <tixy@linaro.org> writes:
>> > 
>> > > From: Jon Medhurst <tixy@linaro.org>
>> > >
>> > > Signed-off-by: Jon Medhurst <tixy@linaro.org>
>> > 
>> > Apologies for resurrecting an old thread.
>> > 
>> > Following the discussion on this thread, even though certain concerns
>> > were raised, there wasn't any objection to $SUBJECT being merged.
>> > 
>> > I don't see this patch in any tree; perhaps it's slipped through the
>> > cracks.
>> 
>> It did slip through the cracks. Lorenzo's last comment was "I am fine
>> with enabling the idle states, I need to review and test the idle states
>> DT data in the patch first though." and I didn't chase things up.
>> 
>> The patch will need refreshing to add idle for Juno r1. Which will then
>> probably resurrect the discussion about where the numbers come from for
>> residency times, and are the same ones for r0 valid on r1 (and r2?).
>> 
>> In an effort to forestall that I would say: does anyone actually care if
>> the values are optimal? Juno is a reference platform and powered off
>> mains, so tuning for the optimum power consumption is pretty pointless.
>> But because it _is_ used as a reference by people it should at least
>> have these features enabled, to serve as an example, and for test
>> coverage.
>
> I agree with you here, let me check the entry/exit latencies again
> to make sure they are reasonably set-up, it is 4.5 material anyway.

Hi Lorenzo,

Have you had a chance to sanity check the values we've got here? I
didn't want to miss this merge window if possible.

Thanks,
Punit

>
> Thanks,
> Lorenzo
>
> _______________________________________________
> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel