From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
To: Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: Linux ACPI <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
Sudeep Holla <Sudeep.Holla@arm.com>
Subject: [PATCH v1 11/17] ACPI: processor: idle: Rework flatten_lpi_states()
Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2026 14:39:06 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2064627.usQuhbGJ8B@rafael.j.wysocki> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4746278.LvFx2qVVIh@rafael.j.wysocki>
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Rewrite flatten_lpi_states() to make it easier to follow:
* Rename its flat_state_cnt, curr_level and prev_level parameters to
state_count, curr, and prev, respectively, so their names match the
names of analogous variables in acpi_processor_get_lpi_info().
* Eliminate a redundant local variable state_count.
* Move definitions of local variables to the code blocks in which
they are used.
* Reduce the indentation level in the inner loop.
* Use more meaningful names for local variables.
* Move two statements that belong in acpi_processor_get_lpi_info()
from flatten_lpi_states() to that function.
* Use acpi_handle_info() for printing a message when the count of
flattened states gets too large and drop the message requesting
ACPI_PROCESSOR_MAX_POWER to be adjusted which is pointless.
* Add a comment explaining what happens in that function.
No intentional functional impact beyond the message printed when
the count of flattened states is too large.
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
---
drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c | 65 +++++++++++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 39 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c b/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c
index 57a0a8aaa42f..edc9b5d88b79 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c
@@ -1045,44 +1045,53 @@ static void stash_composite_state(struct acpi_lpi_states_array *curr_level,
}
static unsigned int flatten_lpi_states(struct acpi_processor *pr,
- unsigned int flat_state_cnt,
- struct acpi_lpi_states_array *curr_level,
- struct acpi_lpi_states_array *prev_level)
+ unsigned int state_count,
+ struct acpi_lpi_states_array *curr,
+ struct acpi_lpi_states_array *prev)
{
- int i, j, state_count = curr_level->size;
- struct acpi_lpi_state *p, *t = curr_level->entries;
+ struct acpi_lpi_state *parent_lpi = curr->entries;
+ unsigned int j;
- curr_level->composite_states_size = 0;
- for (j = 0; j < state_count; j++, t++) {
+ /*
+ * Combine each of the "raw" _LPI states from the current (processor
+ * container) level with all of the composite _LPI states from the
+ * previous (processor or processor container) level.
+ */
+ for (j = 0; j < curr->size; j++, parent_lpi++) {
struct acpi_lpi_state *flpi;
+ int i;
- if (!(t->flags & ACPI_LPI_STATE_FLAGS_ENABLED))
+ if (!(parent_lpi->flags & ACPI_LPI_STATE_FLAGS_ENABLED))
continue;
- if (flat_state_cnt >= ACPI_PROCESSOR_MAX_POWER) {
- pr_warn("Limiting number of LPI states to max (%d)\n",
- ACPI_PROCESSOR_MAX_POWER);
- pr_warn("Please increase ACPI_PROCESSOR_MAX_POWER if needed.\n");
+ if (state_count >= ACPI_PROCESSOR_MAX_POWER) {
+ acpi_handle_info(pr->handle,
+ "No space for more _LPI states than %d\n",
+ ACPI_PROCESSOR_MAX_POWER);
break;
}
- flpi = &pr->power.lpi_states[flat_state_cnt];
-
- for (i = 0; i < prev_level->composite_states_size; i++) {
- p = prev_level->composite_states[i];
- if (t->index <= p->enable_parent_state &&
- combine_lpi_states(p, t, flpi)) {
- stash_composite_state(curr_level, flpi);
- flat_state_cnt++;
- flpi++;
- if (flat_state_cnt >= ACPI_PROCESSOR_MAX_POWER)
- break;
- }
+ flpi = &pr->power.lpi_states[state_count];
+
+ for (i = 0; i < prev->composite_states_size; i++) {
+ struct acpi_lpi_state *local_lpi = prev->composite_states[i];
+
+ if (parent_lpi->index > local_lpi->enable_parent_state)
+ continue;
+
+ if (!combine_lpi_states(local_lpi, parent_lpi, flpi))
+ continue;
+
+ stash_composite_state(curr, flpi);
+ state_count++;
+ flpi++;
+
+ if (state_count >= ACPI_PROCESSOR_MAX_POWER)
+ break;
}
}
- kfree(curr_level->entries);
- return flat_state_cnt;
+ return state_count;
}
int __weak acpi_processor_ffh_lpi_probe(unsigned int cpu)
@@ -1164,6 +1173,8 @@ static int acpi_processor_get_lpi_info(struct acpi_processor *pr)
if (strcmp(acpi_device_hid(d), ACPI_PROCESSOR_CONTAINER_HID))
break;
+ curr->composite_states_size = 0;
+
ret = acpi_processor_evaluate_lpi(handle, curr);
if (ret)
break;
@@ -1171,6 +1182,8 @@ static int acpi_processor_get_lpi_info(struct acpi_processor *pr)
/* flatten all the LPI states in this level of hierarchy */
state_count = flatten_lpi_states(pr, state_count, curr, prev);
+ kfree(curr->entries);
+
tmp = prev, prev = curr, curr = tmp;
}
--
2.51.0
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-07-09 12:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-07-09 12:29 [PATCH v1 00/17] ACPI: processor: idle/intel_idle: Add ACPI _LPI support to intel_idle Rafael J. Wysocki
2026-07-09 12:30 ` [PATCH v1 01/17] ACPI: processor: idle: Expand _LPI package sanity checks Rafael J. Wysocki
2026-07-09 12:31 ` [PATCH v1 02/17] ACPI: processor: idle: Ignore _LPI states with SYSTEMIO entry method Rafael J. Wysocki
2026-07-09 12:32 ` [PATCH v1 03/17] ACPI: processor: idle: Unify debug in acpi_processor_evaluate_lpi() Rafael J. Wysocki
2026-07-09 12:33 ` [PATCH v1 04/17] ACPI: processor: idle: Rearrange acpi_processor_evaluate_lpi() Rafael J. Wysocki
2026-07-09 12:34 ` [PATCH v1 05/17] ACPI: processor: idle: Split acpi_processor_evaluate_lpi() Rafael J. Wysocki
2026-07-09 12:35 ` [PATCH v1 06/17] ACPI: processor: idle: Introduce lpi_state_debug() Rafael J. Wysocki
2026-07-09 12:36 ` [PATCH v1 07/17] ACPI: processor: idle: Rearrange acpi_processor_get_lpi_info() Rafael J. Wysocki
2026-07-09 12:37 ` [PATCH v1 08/17] ACPI: processor: idle: Rework first-level _LPI states processing Rafael J. Wysocki
2026-07-09 12:37 ` [PATCH v1 09/17] ACPI: processor: idle: Drop redundant _LPI presence checks Rafael J. Wysocki
2026-07-09 12:38 ` [PATCH v1 10/17] ACPI: processor: idle: Rearrange loop in acpi_processor_get_lpi_info() Rafael J. Wysocki
2026-07-09 12:39 ` Rafael J. Wysocki [this message]
2026-07-09 12:39 ` [PATCH v1 12/17] ACPI: processor: idle: Introduce too_many_states() for _LPI Rafael J. Wysocki
2026-07-09 12:40 ` [PATCH v1 13/17] ACPI: processor: idle: Introduce acpi_processor_extract_lpi_info() Rafael J. Wysocki
2026-07-09 12:41 ` [PATCH v1 14/17] ACPI: processor: idle: Relocate acpi_processor_extract_lpi_info() Rafael J. Wysocki
2026-07-09 12:42 ` [PATCH v1 15/17] ACPI: processor: idle: Add switch for strict _LPI processing Rafael J. Wysocki
2026-07-09 12:43 ` [PATCH v1 16/17] intel_idle: Prepare for adding ACPI _LPI support Rafael J. Wysocki
2026-07-09 12:44 ` [PATCH v1 17/17] intel_idle: Add " Rafael J. Wysocki
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=2064627.usQuhbGJ8B@rafael.j.wysocki \
--to=rafael@kernel.org \
--cc=Sudeep.Holla@arm.com \
--cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox