From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kevin Hilman Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [RFC PATCH V3 4/4] cpuidle: Single/Global registration of idle states Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2011 16:06:42 -0700 Message-ID: <871v0tvqbh.fsf@ti.com> References: <20110420065445.332.13688.stgit@tringupt.in.ibm.com> <20110420065608.332.30043.stgit@tringupt.in.ibm.com> <87k4eo6d5m.fsf@ti.com> <4DAFB847.50404@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4DAFB847.50404@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (Trinabh Gupta's message of "Thu, 21 Apr 2011 10:23:27 +0530") Sender: linux-sh-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Trinabh Gupta Cc: arjan@linux.intel.com, peterz@infradead.org, lenb@kernel.org, venki@google.com, ak@linux.intel.com, len.brown@intel.com, davinci-linux-open-source@linux.davincidsp.com, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org Hi Trinabh, Trinabh Gupta writes: [...] > I just wanted to get comments on the design and understand how it > affects various architectures in question. It looks to me as if the > design should be okay and infact better for architectures like ARM > since they do not have different idle states for different cpus and > thus do not require per-cpu registration. Global registration would > work and be simpler; please correct me if I am wrong. Yes, I agree that the new design is better, I especially like that it's more clear (and expected) that final state decision making is to be done directly in the driver without the back-and-forth in the current setup. Thanks, Kevin