From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Lezcano Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/7] OMAP4 cpuidle cleanup Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 11:43:29 +0100 Message-ID: <4F69B0D1.6020608@linaro.org> References: <1332322070-24577-1-git-send-email-daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> <4F69A4A5.5020208@linaro.org> <4F69A5BA.1080804@ti.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Received: from mail-bk0-f46.google.com ([209.85.214.46]:64635 "EHLO mail-bk0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758232Ab2CUKnd (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Mar 2012 06:43:33 -0400 Received: by bkcik5 with SMTP id ik5so766328bkc.19 for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2012 03:43:31 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4F69A5BA.1080804@ti.com> Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: Santosh Shilimkar Cc: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org On 03/21/2012 10:56 AM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote: > On Wednesday 21 March 2012 03:21 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote: >> On 03/21/2012 10:36 AM, Shilimkar, Santosh wrote: >>> On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 2:57 PM, Daniel Lezcano >>> wrote: >>>> This patchset is a proposition to improve a bit the code. >>>> The changes are code cleanup and does not change the behavior of t= he >>>> driver itself. >>>> >>> Thanks. Will have a look at your series. >> >> Cool, thanks. >> >>>> A couple a things call my intention. Why the cpuidle device is set >>>> for cpu0 only >>> Because the mainline code CPUIDLE is supported along with CPUhotplu= g. >>> This is going to change though with Couple CPUIDLE and correspondin= g >>> OMAP updates. >> >> Ok, thanks for the information. I will look deeper. What happens to = cpu1 >> when it is online and has nothing to do ? >> >>>> and why the WFI is not used ? >>>> >>> I didn't get this question. Do you mean the generic WFI? >> > I execute default idle loop. So is it not possible to add a cpuidle device for cpu1 and define only=20 one state for the 'wfi-for-omap' ? >> yes. >> >>> If yes, then, it's mainly because OMAP need additional >>> custom barriers. >> >> Ah, ok. I am not sure if it is possible but that may be cool if we c= an >> call cpu_do_idle instead with additional barrier. >> > There is no need. Since code around WFI is customised, it make no sen= se > to call cpu_do_idle(0 ofr only that instruction sake. =46or my personal information, why the WFI is customised for omap4 ? Thanks -- Daniel --=20 Linaro.org =E2=94=82 Open source software fo= r ARM SoCs =46ollow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" i= n the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html