From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 05/11] of: base: Add of_get_cpu_state_node() to get
 idle states for a CPU node
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 17:01:22 +0100
Message-ID: <20181011160122.GB28583@e107155-lin>
References: <20181003143824.13059-1-ulf.hansson@linaro.org>
 <20181003143824.13059-6-ulf.hansson@linaro.org>
 <20181010150331.GB4844@e107155-lin>
 <CAPDyKFq7bNJM5Y4y78tnOEvg7ntmYFtJoDvFH8uR2yUUK9o4HA@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAPDyKFq7bNJM5Y4y78tnOEvg7ntmYFtJoDvFH8uR2yUUK9o4HA@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>
Cc: "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>, Lorenzo Pieralisi <Lorenzo.Pieralisi@arm.com>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>, Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>, Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>, Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>, Kevin Hilman <khilman@kernel.org>, Lina Iyer <ilina@codeaurora.org>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>, Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be>, Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>, linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, DTML <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>
List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 05:05:07PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> On 10 October 2018 at 17:03, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote:
[...]
> >
> > No strong opinion but I am wondering if it makes sense to get cpu
> > logical index and fetch the cpu of_node here to contain the refcount on
> > it within this function while we are trying to consolidate. I do see
> > that may not be so useful in psci.c but keeping refcount for cpu of_node
> > here keeps the user free from that.
> 
> I see your point.
> 
> However, I am hesitating doing that change, as it would be a waste for
> the psci case, but I also think that it may becomes a bit less
> straight forward to use this helper function.
> 
> Although, no strong opinions from my side either, but since Rob is
> happy with this, there is no need to change it, I think.
>

Sure, no problem.

--
Regards,
Sudeep