From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FA34C47E49 for ; Sun, 27 Oct 2019 02:32:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1C7420863 for ; Sun, 27 Oct 2019 02:32:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726605AbfJ0Cc0 (ORCPT ); Sat, 26 Oct 2019 22:32:26 -0400 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.110.172]:53672 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726600AbfJ0Cc0 (ORCPT ); Sat, 26 Oct 2019 22:32:26 -0400 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4864E1FB; Sat, 26 Oct 2019 19:32:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from e107533-lin.cambridge.arm.com (unknown [172.31.20.19]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3417A3F6C4; Sat, 26 Oct 2019 19:32:17 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2019 02:32:13 +0000 From: Sudeep Holla To: Ulf Hansson Cc: "Rafael J . Wysocki" , Daniel Lezcano , Lorenzo Pieralisi , Mark Rutland , Lina Iyer , Linux PM , Rob Herring , Vincent Guittot , Stephen Boyd , Bjorn Andersson , Kevin Hilman , Linux ARM , linux-arm-msm Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/13] cpuidle: psci: Attach CPU devices to their PM domains Message-ID: <20191027023213.GD18111@e107533-lin.cambridge.arm.com> References: <20191010113937.15962-1-ulf.hansson@linaro.org> <20191010113937.15962-12-ulf.hansson@linaro.org> <20191024163515.GD22036@bogus> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 06:55:50PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote: > On Thu, 24 Oct 2019 at 18:35, Sudeep Holla wrote: > > > > On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 01:39:35PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote: > > > In order to enable a CPU to be power managed through its PM domain, let's > > > try to attach it by calling psci_dt_attach_cpu() during the cpuidle > > > initialization. > > > > > > psci_dt_attach_cpu() returns a pointer to the attached struct device, which > > > later should be used for runtime PM, hence we need to store it somewhere. > > > Rather than adding yet another per CPU variable, let's create a per CPU > > > struct to collect the relevant per CPU variables. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Ulf Hansson > > > --- > > > drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-psci.c | 23 +++++++++++++++++++---- > > > 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-psci.c b/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-psci.c > > > index a16467daf99d..1510422c7a53 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-psci.c > > > +++ b/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-psci.c > > > @@ -23,7 +23,12 @@ > > > #include "cpuidle-psci.h" > > > #include "dt_idle_states.h" > > > > > > -static DEFINE_PER_CPU_READ_MOSTLY(u32 *, psci_power_state); > > > +struct psci_cpuidle_data { > > > + u32 *psci_states; > > > + struct device *dev; > > > +}; > > > + > > > +static DEFINE_PER_CPU_READ_MOSTLY(struct psci_cpuidle_data, psci_cpuidle_data); > > > static DEFINE_PER_CPU(u32, domain_state); > > > > > > > /me just thinking still: If it make sense to keep psci_states separate > > and domain_state and only other things needed for RPM/OSI in the > > structure. I do understand that we modify domain_state and hence > > we can't use READ_MOSTLY then. Let's see, for now keep it as is, thought > > I will think out aloud. > > I believe we are striving towards the same goal, which likely means to > separate the non-OSI path vs OSI path, as much as possible. Simply to > avoid any unnecessary operation being done in the non-OSI path. Right? > Yes > However, while I was trying to address that, I realized that it would > probably introduce even more changes to the series. Therefore, it > thought it may be better to address these kind of changes on top, as > improvements. > If possible better to amend this unless it's too complicated. -- Regards, Sudeep