From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Lezcano Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] cpuidle: Rework the handling of the poll state Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 09:13:20 +0200 Message-ID: <335d33b3-832a-1588-c007-16110dbef33e@linaro.org> References: <21794463.WNaOdcSnfv@aspire.rjw.lan> <1350530b-bed8-ab45-d5d2-dcaf4178320d@arm.com> <8432156.DIvYQkV4Qe@aspire.rjw.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <8432156.DIvYQkV4Qe@aspire.rjw.lan> Content-Language: en-US Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Sudeep Holla Cc: Linux PM , LKML , Len Brown , Linux ACPI , Peter Zijlstra , Jacob Pan List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On 28/08/2017 23:17, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Thursday, August 24, 2017 11:48:19 AM CEST Sudeep Holla wrote: >> >> On 23/08/17 22:18, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> On x86 the fist idle state is a polling one, but the way it is set up is far >>> from straightforward and then it is avoided by governors in rather somewhat >>> convoluted fashion. >>> >>> Make this more clear by explicitly flagging that state as "polling" and >>> checking its flag where it needs to be avoided instead of using >>> arch-dependent numbering of idle states (patch [1/3]), move the >>> polling state code from driver.c to a separate C file (patch [2/3]) and >>> move the initialization of it from the core to the relevant cpuidle drivers - >>> ACPI and intel_idle (patch [3/3]). >>> >> >> Tested this on ARM64 platform(both DT and ACPI/LPI) and everything >> continues to work fine. >> Tested-by: Sudeep Holla > > Thanks Sudeep! > > I haven't seen any more comments on this which I'm taking as a green light for > it, so I'm going to queue it up for 4.14. Acked-by: Daniel Lezcano -- Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog