From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Lezcano Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpuidle : handle clockevent notify from the cpuidle framework Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 11:37:58 +0100 Message-ID: <514AE306.4070107@linaro.org> References: <1363795033-26445-1-git-send-email-daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Received: from mail-bk0-f43.google.com ([209.85.214.43]:51384 "EHLO mail-bk0-f43.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754519Ab3CUKiB (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Mar 2013 06:38:01 -0400 Received: by mail-bk0-f43.google.com with SMTP id jm19so1323224bkc.2 for ; Thu, 21 Mar 2013 03:38:00 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org To: Thomas Gleixner Cc: rjw@sisk.pl, linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org, lenb@kernel.org, patches@linaro.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On 03/20/2013 10:21 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Wed, 20 Mar 2013, Daniel Lezcano wrote: >=20 >> When a cpu enters a deep idle state, the local timers are stopped an= d >> the time framework falls back to the timer device used as a broadcas= t >> timer. >> >> The different cpuidle drivers are calling clockevents_notify ENTER/E= XIT >> when the idle state stops the local timer. >> >> The proposed patch introduces a new flag CPUIDLE_FLAG_TIMER_STOP to = let >=20 > Please stop using "proposed patch ...." wording in a patch > description. The changelog you submit with your patch should be > applicable w/o rewriting. Oh, yes. Thanks for pointing this. >> the cpuidle framework to call clockevents_notify instead of duplicat= ing >> again and again these lines in all the cpuidle drivers. >=20 > That's a good enough reason, really. So that paragraph should be > something like: >=20 > "Add a new flag CPUIDLE_FLAG_TIMER_STOP which can be set by cpuidle > drivers. If the flag is set the cpuidle core code takes care of the > notification on behalf of the driver to avoid pointless code > duplication." >=20 > Ideally you would follow up with two or three drivers converted to > that new infrastructure instead of sending that patch standalone. Tha= t > way reviewers can really see the benefit in terms of reduced code > duplication. Thanks for your review. I will resend this patch with a better log and = a couple of patches on top using this flag. -- Daniel --=20 Linaro.org =E2=94=82 Open source software for= ARM SoCs =46ollow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog