From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sudeep Holla Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 06/11] cpuidle: dt: Support hierarchical CPU idle states Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 16:03:44 +0100 Message-ID: <20181010150344.GC4844@e107155-lin> References: <20181003143824.13059-1-ulf.hansson@linaro.org> <20181003143824.13059-7-ulf.hansson@linaro.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20181003143824.13059-7-ulf.hansson@linaro.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Ulf Hansson Cc: "Rafael J . Wysocki" , Lorenzo Pieralisi , Mark Rutland , Daniel Lezcano , linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, Tony Lindgren , Kevin Hilman , Lina Iyer , Rob Herring , Viresh Kumar , Vincent Guittot , Geert Uytterhoeven , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Lina Iyer , Sudeep Holla List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 04:38:19PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote: > From: Lina Iyer > > Currently CPU's idle states are represented in a flattened model, via the > "cpu-idle-states" binding from within the CPU's device nodes. > > Support the hierarchical layout during parsing and validating of the CPU's > idle states. This is simply done by calling the new OF helper, > of_get_cpu_state_node(). > > Cc: Lina Iyer > Suggested-by: Sudeep Holla > Signed-off-by: Lina Iyer > Co-developed-by: Ulf Hansson > Signed-off-by: Ulf Hansson > --- > drivers/cpuidle/dt_idle_states.c | 5 ++--- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/cpuidle/dt_idle_states.c b/drivers/cpuidle/dt_idle_states.c > index 53342b7f1010..13f9b7cd32d1 100644 > --- a/drivers/cpuidle/dt_idle_states.c > +++ b/drivers/cpuidle/dt_idle_states.c > @@ -118,8 +118,7 @@ static bool idle_state_valid(struct device_node *state_node, unsigned int idx, > for (cpu = cpumask_next(cpumask_first(cpumask), cpumask); > cpu < nr_cpu_ids; cpu = cpumask_next(cpu, cpumask)) { > cpu_node = of_cpu_device_node_get(cpu); We can get rid of above and the of_node_put below if we move this into of_get_cpu_state_node as suggested in earlier patch. Apart from these, I don't see any issues with the subset unless there are users for these. I will dig the v8 and comment. -- Regards, Sudeep