From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Lina Iyer Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/1] ARM: cpuidle: heterogeneous systems extension Date: Tue, 12 May 2015 10:36:50 -0600 Message-ID: <20150512163650.GM16124@linaro.org> References: <1429200617-9546-1-git-send-email-lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com> <20150422085507.GA22601@red-moon> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150422085507.GA22601@red-moon> Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Lorenzo Pieralisi Cc: Kevin Hilman , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , Howard Chen , Rob Herring , Kevin Hilman , Sudeep Holla , Daniel Lezcano , "grant.likely@linaro.org" , Mathieu Poirier , Mark Rutland List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Apr 22 2015 at 02:55 -0600, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: >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. Dynamic idle driver would be nice. Otherwise, the patch looks good to me. Thanks, Lina