From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Lorenzo Pieralisi Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/1] ARM: cpuidle: heterogeneous systems extension Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 09:55:07 +0100 Message-ID: <20150422085507.GA22601@red-moon> References: <1429200617-9546-1-git-send-email-lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Kevin Hilman Cc: "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , Howard Chen , Rob Herring , Kevin Hilman , Sudeep Holla , Lina Iyer , Daniel Lezcano , "grant.likely@linaro.org" , Mathieu Poirier , Mark Rutland List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 07:24:54PM +0100, Kevin Hilman wrote: > On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 9:10 AM, Lorenzo Pieralisi > wrote: > > [...] > > > This patch sets the maximum number of static CPUidle drivers allowed to > > two, since it is hard to foresee systems with more than two sets of CPUs > > having different idle states > > It's not hard to forsee anymore: > > http://www.cnx-software.com/2015/04/21/mediatek-helio-x20-deca-core-processor/ > https://liliputing.com/2015/04/closer-look-at-mediateks-upcoming-10-core-helio-x20-processor.html Eheh I stand corrected :). Not a big deal, drivers can be allocated dynamically; it seems that the designs above leave us no choice, the idle states are the only differentiating factor when it comes to CPUidle driver logical cpumask creation, happy to hear more opinions on this, but I do not really see what we can use instead. Thanks, Lorenzo