From: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>
To: Sebastian Capella <sebastian.capella@linaro.org>
Cc: "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
"linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
"devicetree@vger.kernel.org" <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
Mark Rutland <Mark.Rutland@arm.com>,
Sudeep Holla <Sudeep.Holla@arm.com>,
Catalin Marinas <Catalin.Marinas@arm.com>,
Charles Garcia-Tobin <Charles.Garcia-Tobin@arm.com>,
Nicolas Pitre <nico@linaro.org>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
"grant.likely@linaro.org" <grant.likely@linaro.org>,
Peter De Schrijver <pdeschrijver@nvidia.com>,
Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@ti.com>,
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>,
Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria@linaro.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
Antti Miettinen <ananaza@iki.fi>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org>,
Kevin Hilman <khilman@linaro.org>,
Tomasz Figa <t.figa@samsung.com>, Sebastian Capella <capellas@>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v3 3/6] drivers: cpuidle: implement OF based idle states infrastructure
Date: Fri, 9 May 2014 10:47:19 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140509094718.GD32007@e102568-lin.cambridge.arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <536c0f39.90ab420a.3da7.ffff86ca@mx.google.com>
On Fri, May 09, 2014 at 12:12:19AM +0100, Sebastian Capella wrote:
> Quoting Lorenzo Pieralisi (2014-05-06 11:04:40)
>
> > diff --git a/drivers/cpuidle/of_idle_states.c b/drivers/cpuidle/of_idle_states.c
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 0000000..360b7ad
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/drivers/cpuidle/of_idle_states.c
> > @@ -0,0 +1,293 @@
> ...
> > +static int __init add_state_node(cpumask_t *cpumask,
> > + struct device_node *state_node)
> > +{
> > + struct state_elem *el;
> > + u32 tmp, val = 0;
> > +
> > + pr_debug(" * %s...\n", state_node->full_name);
> > +
> > + if (!state_cpus_valid(cpumask, state_node))
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > + /*
> > + * Parse just the properties required to sort the states.
> > + * Since we are missing a value defining the energy
> > + * efficiency of a state, for now the sorting code uses
> > + *
> > + * min-residency-us+exit-latency-us
> > + *
> > + * as sorting rank.
> > + */
> > + if (of_property_read_u32(state_node, "min-residency-us",
> > + &tmp)) {
> > + pr_debug(" * %s missing min-residency-us property\n",
> > + state_node->full_name);
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > + }
> > +
> > + val += tmp;
> > +
> > + if (of_property_read_u32(state_node, "exit-latency-us",
> > + &tmp)) {
> > + pr_debug(" * %s missing exit-latency-us property\n",
> > + state_node->full_name);
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > + }
> > +
> > + val += tmp;
>
> Sorry if i'm rehashing old stuff, but I prefer not to use the
> min-residency + exit-latency to sort. I saw Rob's comment suggesting it
> and your reply. I'm not sure when it was decided.
>
> Would it be possible to sort instead based on the order in the
> cpus->cpu-idle-states? If not, my preference would be to either use
> index like you had before, or specify another sort order / rank value.
"power-rank" property ? We can't rely on the DT state nodes ordering.
I am ok with adding a power-rank property, as long as it is not frowned
upon by DT maintainers, I am running short of ideas for states sorting if
I can't use idle state properties to pull that off.
> I think there's potential for us to create lower power states that
> have lower min-residencies (reduced power consumption in the state,
> allowing us to more quickly recover the higher entrance cost)
> with higher exit latencies in such a way that the formula would not
> sort as we expect. Having a separate value would allow us to control
> the sorting in those cases.
>
> > +
> > +/*
>
> For kernel-doc, I think you need a /** here, and a () after the
> of_init_idle_driver below. Also maybe Return: instead of Returns:
> and I think the return paragraph goes at the end, but am not positive.
>
> kernel-doc-nano-HOWTO.txt
Ok changes done.
Thanks,
Lorenzo
> > + * of_init_idle_driver - Parse the DT idle states and initialize the
> > + * idle driver states array
> > + *
> > + * @drv: Pointer to CPU idle driver to be initialized
> > + * @state_nodes: Array of struct device_nodes to be initialized if
> > + * init_nodes == true. Must be sized CPUIDLE_STATE_MAX
> > + * @start_idx: First idle state index to be initialized
> > + * @init_nodes: Boolean to request device nodes initialization
> > + *
> > + * Returns:
> > + * 0 on success
> > + * <0 on failure
> > + *
> > + * On success the states array in the cpuidle driver contains
> > + * initialized entries in the states array, starting from index start_idx.
> > + * If init_nodes == true, on success the state_nodes array is initialized
> > + * with idle state DT node pointers, starting from index start_idx,
> > + * in a 1:1 relation with the idle driver states array.
> > + */
> > +int __init of_init_idle_driver(struct cpuidle_driver *drv,
> > + struct device_node *state_nodes[],
> > + unsigned int start_idx, bool init_nodes)
> > +{
>
> Thanks!
>
> Sebastian
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-05-09 9:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-05-06 18:04 [PATCH RFC v3 0/6] ARM generic idle states Lorenzo Pieralisi
2014-05-06 18:04 ` [PATCH RFC v3 2/6] Documentation: devicetree: psci: define CPU suspend parameter Lorenzo Pieralisi
2014-05-07 23:45 ` Sebastian Capella
2014-05-06 18:04 ` [PATCH RFC v3 3/6] drivers: cpuidle: implement OF based idle states infrastructure Lorenzo Pieralisi
2014-05-08 23:12 ` Sebastian Capella
2014-05-09 9:47 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi [this message]
2014-05-09 12:04 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
[not found] ` <1399399483-17112-1-git-send-email-lorenzo.pieralisi-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org>
2014-05-06 18:04 ` [PATCH RFC v3 1/6] Documentation: arm: define DT idle states bindings Lorenzo Pieralisi
2014-05-07 23:43 ` Sebastian Capella
2014-05-08 8:57 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2014-05-08 23:28 ` Sebastian Capella
2014-05-06 18:04 ` [PATCH RFC v3 4/6] arm64: add PSCI CPU_SUSPEND based cpu_suspend support Lorenzo Pieralisi
2014-05-09 23:11 ` Sebastian Capella
2014-05-06 18:04 ` [PATCH RFC v3 5/6] drivers: cpuidle: CPU idle ARM64 driver Lorenzo Pieralisi
2014-05-09 0:48 ` Sebastian Capella
2014-05-09 9:40 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2014-05-06 18:04 ` [PATCH RFC v3 6/6] arm64: boot: dts: update rtsm aemv8 dts with PSCI and idle states Lorenzo Pieralisi
2014-05-09 0:51 ` Sebastian Capella
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20140509094718.GD32007@e102568-lin.cambridge.arm.com \
--to=lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com \
--cc=Catalin.Marinas@arm.com \
--cc=Charles.Garcia-Tobin@arm.com \
--cc=Mark.Rutland@arm.com \
--cc=Sudeep.Holla@arm.com \
--cc=amit.kucheria@linaro.org \
--cc=ananaza@iki.fi \
--cc=daniel.lezcano@linaro.org \
--cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=grant.likely@linaro.org \
--cc=khilman@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nico@linaro.org \
--cc=pdeschrijver@nvidia.com \
--cc=robh+dt@kernel.org \
--cc=santosh.shilimkar@ti.com \
--cc=sboyd@codeaurora.org \
--cc=sebastian.capella@linaro.org \
--cc=t.figa@samsung.com \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).