[PATCH 1/9] ARM: cpuidle: remove useless declaration

[PATCH 1/9] ARM: cpuidle: remove useless declaration

[Daniel Lezcano]

The noop functions code is not necessary because the header file is
included in files which are compiled when CONFIG_CPU_IDLE is on.

Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
---
 arch/arm/include/asm/cpuidle.h |    7 +------
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/cpuidle.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/cpuidle.h
index 2fca60a..7367787 100644
--- a/arch/arm/include/asm/cpuidle.h
+++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/cpuidle.h
@@ -1,13 +1,8 @@
 #ifndef __ASM_ARM_CPUIDLE_H
 #define __ASM_ARM_CPUIDLE_H
 
-#ifdef CONFIG_CPU_IDLE
 extern int arm_cpuidle_simple_enter(struct cpuidle_device *dev,
-		struct cpuidle_driver *drv, int index);
-#else
-static inline int arm_cpuidle_simple_enter(struct cpuidle_device *dev,
-		struct cpuidle_driver *drv, int index) { return -ENODEV; }
-#endif
+				    struct cpuidle_driver *drv, int index);
 
 /* Common ARM WFI state */
 #define ARM_CPUIDLE_WFI_STATE_PWR(p) {\
-- 
1.7.9.5

[PATCH 2/9] ARM: shmobile: pm: fix init sections

[Daniel Lezcano]

Add the __init section for the functions which are called
at init time.

Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.linaro.org>
Acked-by: Simon Horman <horms+renesas@verge.net.au>
---
 arch/arm/mach-shmobile/cpuidle.c   |    4 ++--
 arch/arm/mach-shmobile/pm-sh7372.c |    4 ++--
 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-shmobile/cpuidle.c b/arch/arm/mach-shmobile/cpuidle.c
index 9e05026..068f9ca 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-shmobile/cpuidle.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-shmobile/cpuidle.c
@@ -36,12 +36,12 @@ static struct cpuidle_driver shmobile_cpuidle_default_driver = {
 
 static struct cpuidle_driver *cpuidle_drv = &shmobile_cpuidle_default_driver;
 
-void shmobile_cpuidle_set_driver(struct cpuidle_driver *drv)
+void __init shmobile_cpuidle_set_driver(struct cpuidle_driver *drv)
 {
 	cpuidle_drv = drv;
 }
 
-int shmobile_cpuidle_init(void)
+int __init shmobile_cpuidle_init(void)
 {
 	struct cpuidle_device *dev = &shmobile_cpuidle_dev;
 
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-shmobile/pm-sh7372.c b/arch/arm/mach-shmobile/pm-sh7372.c
index a0826a4..f6b14ca 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-shmobile/pm-sh7372.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-shmobile/pm-sh7372.c
@@ -450,12 +450,12 @@ static struct cpuidle_driver sh7372_cpuidle_driver = {
 	},
 };
 
-static void sh7372_cpuidle_init(void)
+static void __init sh7372_cpuidle_init(void)
 {
 	shmobile_cpuidle_set_driver(&sh7372_cpuidle_driver);
 }
 #else
-static void sh7372_cpuidle_init(void) {}
+static void __init sh7372_cpuidle_init(void) {}
 #endif
 
 #ifdef CONFIG_SUSPEND
-- 
1.7.9.5

[PATCH 3/9] ARM: shmobile: cpuidle: remove useless WFI function

[Daniel Lezcano]

Remove the shmobile_enter_wfi function which is the same as the
common WFI enter function from the arm cpuidle driver defined
with the ARM_CPUIDLE_WFI_STATE macro.

Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
Acked-by: Simon Horman <horms+renesas@verge.net.au>
---
 arch/arm/mach-shmobile/cpuidle.c |    8 --------
 1 file changed, 8 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-shmobile/cpuidle.c b/arch/arm/mach-shmobile/cpuidle.c
index 068f9ca..c872ae8 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-shmobile/cpuidle.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-shmobile/cpuidle.c
@@ -16,20 +16,12 @@
 #include <asm/cpuidle.h>
 #include <asm/io.h>
 
-int shmobile_enter_wfi(struct cpuidle_device *dev, struct cpuidle_driver *drv,
-		       int index)
-{
-	cpu_do_idle();
-	return 0;
-}
-
 static struct cpuidle_device shmobile_cpuidle_dev;
 static struct cpuidle_driver shmobile_cpuidle_default_driver = {
 	.name			= "shmobile_cpuidle",
 	.owner			= THIS_MODULE,
 	.en_core_tk_irqen	= 1,
 	.states[0]		= ARM_CPUIDLE_WFI_STATE,
-	.states[0].enter	= shmobile_enter_wfi,
 	.safe_state_index	= 0, /* C1 */
 	.state_count		= 1,
 };
-- 
1.7.9.5

[PATCH 5/9] ARM: tegra2: cpuidle: change driver initialization

[Daniel Lezcano]

Initialize the idle states directly in the driver structure.

That prevents extra structure declaration and memcpy at init time.

Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
---
 arch/arm/mach-tegra/cpuidle-tegra20.c |   40 ++++++++++++++++-----------------
 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-tegra/cpuidle-tegra20.c b/arch/arm/mach-tegra/cpuidle-tegra20.c
index 825ced4..1ad1a67 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-tegra/cpuidle-tegra20.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-tegra/cpuidle-tegra20.c
@@ -43,28 +43,32 @@ static atomic_t abort_barrier;
 static int tegra20_idle_lp2_coupled(struct cpuidle_device *dev,
 				    struct cpuidle_driver *drv,
 				    int index);
+#define TEGRA20_MAX_STATES 2
+#else
+#define TEGRA20_MAX_STATES 1
 #endif
 
-static struct cpuidle_state tegra_idle_states[] = {
-	[0] = ARM_CPUIDLE_WFI_STATE_PWR(600),
-#ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
-	[1] = {
-		.enter			= tegra20_idle_lp2_coupled,
-		.exit_latency		= 5000,
-		.target_residency	= 10000,
-		.power_usage		= 0,
-		.flags			= CPUIDLE_FLAG_TIME_VALID |
-					  CPUIDLE_FLAG_COUPLED,
-		.name			= "powered-down",
-		.desc			= "CPU power gated",
-	},
-#endif
-};
-
 static struct cpuidle_driver tegra_idle_driver = {
 	.name = "tegra_idle",
 	.owner = THIS_MODULE,
 	.en_core_tk_irqen = 1,
+	.states = {
+		ARM_CPUIDLE_WFI_STATE_PWR(600),
+#ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
+		{
+			.enter            = tegra20_idle_lp2_coupled,
+			.exit_latency     = 5000,
+			.target_residency = 10000,
+			.power_usage      = 0,
+			.flags            = CPUIDLE_FLAG_TIME_VALID |
+			CPUIDLE_FLAG_COUPLED,
+			.name             = "powered-down",
+			.desc             = "CPU power gated",
+		},
+#endif
+	},
+	.state_count = TEGRA20_MAX_STATES,
+	.safe_state_index = 0,
 };
 
 static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct cpuidle_device, tegra_idle_device);
@@ -226,10 +230,6 @@ int __init tegra20_cpuidle_init(void)
 	tegra_tear_down_cpu = tegra20_tear_down_cpu;
 #endif
 
-	drv->state_count = ARRAY_SIZE(tegra_idle_states);
-	memcpy(drv->states, tegra_idle_states,
-			drv->state_count * sizeof(drv->states[0]));
-
 	ret = cpuidle_register_driver(&tegra_idle_driver);
 	if (ret) {
 		pr_err("CPUidle driver registration failed\n");
-- 
1.7.9.5

Re: [PATCH 5/9] ARM: tegra2: cpuidle: change driver initialization

[Stephen Warren]

On 03/29/2013 04:31 AM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> Initialize the idle states directly in the driver structure.
> 
> That prevents extra structure declaration and memcpy at init time.

Joseph, can you please review/ack patch 5/9 and patch 6/9. Thanks.

Re: [PATCH 5/9] ARM: tegra2: cpuidle: change driver initialization

[Daniel Lezcano]

On 03/29/2013 05:02 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 03/29/2013 04:31 AM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> Initialize the idle states directly in the driver structure.
>>
>> That prevents extra structure declaration and memcpy at init time.
> 
> Joseph, can you please review/ack patch 5/9 and patch 6/9. Thanks.

Thanks Joseph to review the patches.

Rafael is expecting an Acked-by.

If you are ok, with these patches, is it possible to ack them please ?

Thanks
  -- Daniel


-- 
 <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog

Re: [PATCH 5/9] ARM: tegra2: cpuidle: change driver initialization

[Joseph Lo]

On Wed, 2013-04-03 at 19:18 +0800, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 03/29/2013 05:02 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> > On 03/29/2013 04:31 AM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> >> Initialize the idle states directly in the driver structure.
> >>
> >> That prevents extra structure declaration and memcpy at init time.
> > 
> > Joseph, can you please review/ack patch 5/9 and patch 6/9. Thanks.
> 
> Thanks Joseph to review the patches.
> 
> Rafael is expecting an Acked-by.
> 
> If you are ok, with these patches, is it possible to ack them please ?
> 
OK.

The 5/9 and 6/9 of this series.
Acked-by: Joseph Lo <josephl-DDmLM1+adcrQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>

Thanks,
Joseph
> 
> 

Re: [PATCH 5/9] ARM: tegra2: cpuidle: change driver initialization

[Daniel Lezcano]

On 04/03/2013 01:23 PM, Joseph Lo wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-04-03 at 19:18 +0800, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> On 03/29/2013 05:02 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>>> On 03/29/2013 04:31 AM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>>> Initialize the idle states directly in the driver structure.
>>>>
>>>> That prevents extra structure declaration and memcpy at init time.
>>>
>>> Joseph, can you please review/ack patch 5/9 and patch 6/9. Thanks.
>>
>> Thanks Joseph to review the patches.
>>
>> Rafael is expecting an Acked-by.
>>
>> If you are ok, with these patches, is it possible to ack them please ?
>>
> OK.
> 
> The 5/9 and 6/9 of this series.
> Acked-by: Joseph Lo <josephl-DDmLM1+adcrQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>

Thanks Joseph.




-- 
 <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog

Re: [PATCH 5/9] ARM: tegra2: cpuidle: change driver initialization

[Joseph Lo]

On Fri, 2013-03-29 at 18:31 +0800, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> Initialize the idle states directly in the driver structure.
> 
> That prevents extra structure declaration and memcpy at init time.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>

Hi Daniel,

Thank you.

Both the 5th and 6th patch,

Reviewed-by: Joseph Lo <josephl-DDmLM1+adcrQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>

Re: [PATCH 5/9] ARM: tegra2: cpuidle: change driver initialization

[Stephen Warren]

On 03/29/2013 08:22 PM, Joseph Lo wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-03-29 at 18:31 +0800, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> Initialize the idle states directly in the driver structure.
>>
>> That prevents extra structure declaration and memcpy at init time.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
> 
> Hi Daniel,
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> Both the 5th and 6th patch,
> 
> Reviewed-by: Joseph Lo <josephl@nvidia.com>

Thanks. Those same two patches therefore,

Acked-by: Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com>

[PATCH 4/9] ARM: OMAP4: cpuidle: fix wrong driver initialization

[Daniel Lezcano]

The driver is initialized several times. This is wrong and if the
return code of the function was checked, it will return -EINVAL.

Move this initialization out of the loop.

Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
---
 arch/arm/mach-omap2/cpuidle44xx.c |    9 +++++++--
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/cpuidle44xx.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/cpuidle44xx.c
index f4b1b23..3d33b8a 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/cpuidle44xx.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/cpuidle44xx.c
@@ -210,6 +210,7 @@ int __init omap4_idle_init(void)
 {
 	struct cpuidle_device *dev;
 	unsigned int cpu_id = 0;
+	int ret;
 
 	mpu_pd = pwrdm_lookup("mpu_pwrdm");
 	cpu_pd[0] = pwrdm_lookup("cpu0_pwrdm");
@@ -222,14 +223,18 @@ int __init omap4_idle_init(void)
 	if (!cpu_clkdm[0] || !cpu_clkdm[1])
 		return -ENODEV;
 
+	ret = cpuidle_register_driver(&omap4_idle_driver);
+	if (ret) {
+		printk(KERN_ERR "failed to register the idle driver\n");
+		return ret;
+	}
+
 	for_each_cpu(cpu_id, cpu_online_mask) {
 		dev = &per_cpu(omap4_idle_dev, cpu_id);
 		dev->cpu = cpu_id;
 #ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_NEEDS_CPU_IDLE_COUPLED
 		dev->coupled_cpus = *cpu_online_mask;
 #endif
-		cpuidle_register_driver(&omap4_idle_driver);
-
 		if (cpuidle_register_device(dev)) {
 			pr_err("%s: CPUidle register failed\n", __func__);
 			return -EIO;
-- 
1.7.9.5

Re: [PATCH 4/9] ARM: OMAP4: cpuidle: fix wrong driver initialization

[Santosh Shilimkar]

On Friday 29 March 2013 04:01 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> The driver is initialized several times. This is wrong and if the
> return code of the function was checked, it will return -EINVAL.
> 
> Move this initialization out of the loop.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
> ---
Fix for this is already and v2 of the patch is here [1]

Regards,
Santosh

[1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/2329861/

Re: [PATCH 4/9] ARM: OMAP4: cpuidle: fix wrong driver initialization

[Daniel Lezcano]

On 03/29/2013 11:38 AM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
> On Friday 29 March 2013 04:01 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> The driver is initialized several times. This is wrong and if the
>> return code of the function was checked, it will return -EINVAL.
>>
>> Move this initialization out of the loop.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
>> ---
> Fix for this is already and v2 of the patch is here [1]

Ah, ok. Thanks for reviewing the patch.

Can we find a solution to have a single entry point to sumbit patches
for all the cpuidle drivers ?

Otherwise, consolidating them is a pain: a patch for the samsung tree,
another one for the at91 tree, etc ... and wait for all the trees to
sync before continuing to consolidate the code.

Wouldn't be worth to move these drivers under the PM umbrella instead of
the SoC specific code ?

Any idea to simplify the cpuidle consolidation and maintenance ?

Thanks
  -- Daniel


-- 
 <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog

Re: [PATCH 4/9] ARM: OMAP4: cpuidle: fix wrong driver initialization

[Santosh Shilimkar]

On Friday 29 March 2013 04:15 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 03/29/2013 11:38 AM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
>> On Friday 29 March 2013 04:01 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>> The driver is initialized several times. This is wrong and if the
>>> return code of the function was checked, it will return -EINVAL.
>>>
>>> Move this initialization out of the loop.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
>>> ---
>> Fix for this is already and v2 of the patch is here [1]
> 
> Ah, ok. Thanks for reviewing the patch.
> 
> Can we find a solution to have a single entry point to sumbit patches
> for all the cpuidle drivers ?
> 
> Otherwise, consolidating them is a pain: a patch for the samsung tree,
> another one for the at91 tree, etc ... and wait for all the trees to
> sync before continuing to consolidate the code.
> 
> Wouldn't be worth to move these drivers under the PM umbrella instead of
> the SoC specific code ?
>
> Any idea to simplify the cpuidle consolidation and maintenance ?
> 
Fisrtly patches get posted to right mailing list based on where the
code resides. So one must keep a watch on LAKML for the patches.

Talking specific to OMAP idle code, there is plan to move
to drivers/idle/* but for that to happen there are some PRM/CM
dependency for which also driver movement is planned. Once
that happen, OMAP idle will find its way in drivers/idle/*

Re: [PATCH 4/9] ARM: OMAP4: cpuidle: fix wrong driver initialization

[Daniel Lezcano]

On 03/29/2013 11:53 AM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
> On Friday 29 March 2013 04:15 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> On 03/29/2013 11:38 AM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
>>> On Friday 29 March 2013 04:01 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>>> The driver is initialized several times. This is wrong and if the
>>>> return code of the function was checked, it will return -EINVAL.
>>>>
>>>> Move this initialization out of the loop.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
>>>> ---
>>> Fix for this is already and v2 of the patch is here [1]
>>
>> Ah, ok. Thanks for reviewing the patch.
>>
>> Can we find a solution to have a single entry point to sumbit patches
>> for all the cpuidle drivers ?
>>
>> Otherwise, consolidating them is a pain: a patch for the samsung tree,
>> another one for the at91 tree, etc ... and wait for all the trees to
>> sync before continuing to consolidate the code.
>>
>> Wouldn't be worth to move these drivers under the PM umbrella instead of
>> the SoC specific code ?
>>
>> Any idea to simplify the cpuidle consolidation and maintenance ?
>>
> Fisrtly patches get posted to right mailing list based on where the
> code resides. So one must keep a watch on LAKML for the patches.

Yes, I agree.

The main issue is the multiple tree for the different drivers making
hard to track, modify and improve the drivers in one shot.

It is not the first time, a modification of the cpuidle framework
implied to modify all the drivers.

When Rob introduced the first code consolidation, that took months to
add a simple flag in the drivers because we had to wait for the merge
before the changes in drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c were visible.

> Talking specific to OMAP idle code, there is plan to move
> to drivers/idle/* but for that to happen there are some PRM/CM
> dependency for which also driver movement is planned. Once
> that happen, OMAP idle will find its way in drivers/idle/*

That would be *really* great. If we can do that for all the drivers,
that will solve the multi-location / multi-tree problem.

The u8500 driver will be moved soon to this directory also.

I did some modifications around the at91 some months ago to encapsulate
the code more, maybe it could be also a good candidate. Nicolas ?

For OMAP3 that could be a bit more difficult. Who is maintaining the
driver now ?

I Cc'ed the different maintainers for the other boards, may be they can
react ?

Thanks
  -- Daniel

-- 
 <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog

Re: [PATCH 4/9] ARM: OMAP4: cpuidle: fix wrong driver initialization

[Santosh Shilimkar]

On Friday 29 March 2013 04:53 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 03/29/2013 11:53 AM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
>> On Friday 29 March 2013 04:15 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
[..]

> For OMAP3 that could be a bit more difficult. Who is maintaining the
> driver now ?
> 
The driver is still maintained by Kevin Hilman and quite a few us keep
that driver upto date. OMAP3 idle is movable as well. A while back I
have assessed move of OMAP3 and OMAP4 idle drivers, and the only issue
was the other PRM/CM dependency.

Regards,
Santosh

Re: [PATCH 4/9] ARM: OMAP4: cpuidle: fix wrong driver initialization

[Amit Kucheria]

On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Daniel Lezcano
<daniel.lezcano-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> On 03/29/2013 11:38 AM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
>> On Friday 29 March 2013 04:01 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>> The driver is initialized several times. This is wrong and if the
>>> return code of the function was checked, it will return -EINVAL.
>>>
>>> Move this initialization out of the loop.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
>>> ---
>> Fix for this is already and v2 of the patch is here [1]
>
> Ah, ok. Thanks for reviewing the patch.
>
> Can we find a solution to have a single entry point to sumbit patches
> for all the cpuidle drivers ?
>
> Otherwise, consolidating them is a pain: a patch for the samsung tree,
> another one for the at91 tree, etc ... and wait for all the trees to
> sync before continuing to consolidate the code.
>
> Wouldn't be worth to move these drivers under the PM umbrella instead of
> the SoC specific code ?
>
> Any idea to simplify the cpuidle consolidation and maintenance ?

Adding Arnd and Olof to this discussion since atleast the ARM drivers
go through their arm-soc tree.

Given the work you're putting in to consolidate the drivers, perhaps
they can insist that idle drivers get acked by you?

/Amit

Re: [PATCH 4/9] ARM: OMAP4: cpuidle: fix wrong driver initialization

[Santosh Shilimkar]

On Friday 29 March 2013 05:26 PM, Amit Kucheria wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Daniel Lezcano
> <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> wrote:
>> On 03/29/2013 11:38 AM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
>>> On Friday 29 March 2013 04:01 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>>> The driver is initialized several times. This is wrong and if the
>>>> return code of the function was checked, it will return -EINVAL.
>>>>
>>>> Move this initialization out of the loop.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
>>>> ---
>>> Fix for this is already and v2 of the patch is here [1]
>>
>> Ah, ok. Thanks for reviewing the patch.
>>
>> Can we find a solution to have a single entry point to sumbit patches
>> for all the cpuidle drivers ?
>>
>> Otherwise, consolidating them is a pain: a patch for the samsung tree,
>> another one for the at91 tree, etc ... and wait for all the trees to
>> sync before continuing to consolidate the code.
>>
>> Wouldn't be worth to move these drivers under the PM umbrella instead of
>> the SoC specific code ?
>>
>> Any idea to simplify the cpuidle consolidation and maintenance ?
> 
> Adding Arnd and Olof to this discussion since atleast the ARM drivers
> go through their arm-soc tree.
> 
> Given the work you're putting in to consolidate the drivers, perhaps
> they can insist that idle drivers get acked by you?
> 
Not to create controversy but as a general rule there is nothing
like *insisting* ack on patches for merge apart from the official
maintainers(gate keepers).

Having said that, its always good to get more reviews and acks so
that better code gets merged.

This just my personal opinion.

Regards,
Santosh

Re: [PATCH 4/9] ARM: OMAP4: cpuidle: fix wrong driver initialization

[Amit Kucheria]

On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 5:50 PM, Santosh Shilimkar
<santosh.shilimkar@ti.com> wrote:
> On Friday 29 March 2013 05:26 PM, Amit Kucheria wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Daniel Lezcano
>> <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> wrote:
>>> On 03/29/2013 11:38 AM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
>>>> On Friday 29 March 2013 04:01 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>>>> The driver is initialized several times. This is wrong and if the
>>>>> return code of the function was checked, it will return -EINVAL.
>>>>>
>>>>> Move this initialization out of the loop.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
>>>>> ---
>>>> Fix for this is already and v2 of the patch is here [1]
>>>
>>> Ah, ok. Thanks for reviewing the patch.
>>>
>>> Can we find a solution to have a single entry point to sumbit patches
>>> for all the cpuidle drivers ?
>>>
>>> Otherwise, consolidating them is a pain: a patch for the samsung tree,
>>> another one for the at91 tree, etc ... and wait for all the trees to
>>> sync before continuing to consolidate the code.
>>>
>>> Wouldn't be worth to move these drivers under the PM umbrella instead of
>>> the SoC specific code ?
>>>
>>> Any idea to simplify the cpuidle consolidation and maintenance ?
>>
>> Adding Arnd and Olof to this discussion since atleast the ARM drivers
>> go through their arm-soc tree.
>>
>> Given the work you're putting in to consolidate the drivers, perhaps
>> they can insist that idle drivers get acked by you?
>>
> Not to create controversy but as a general rule there is nothing
> like *insisting* ack on patches for merge apart from the official
> maintainers(gate keepers).
>
> Having said that, its always good to get more reviews and acks so
> that better code gets merged.
>
> This just my personal opinion.

I'm not asking for special treatment here. :) I'm requesting one set
of maintainers (arm-soc maintainers) to push back on changes that
don't get platform idle drivers in sync with the consolidation work
that is currently ongoing.

This will speed up the process since it is hard to track every
SoC-specific list for these changes. Some platform maintainers might
not even be aware of it (those that Daniel hasn't modified yet). A
similar approach seems to have worked for common clock, DT, pinmux,
etc.

/Amit

Re: [PATCH 4/9] ARM: OMAP4: cpuidle: fix wrong driver initialization

[Santosh Shilimkar]

On Friday 29 March 2013 06:20 PM, Amit Kucheria wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 5:50 PM, Santosh Shilimkar
> <santosh.shilimkar-l0cyMroinI0@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>> On Friday 29 March 2013 05:26 PM, Amit Kucheria wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Daniel Lezcano
>>> <daniel.lezcano-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>>>> On 03/29/2013 11:38 AM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
>>>>> On Friday 29 March 2013 04:01 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>>>>> The driver is initialized several times. This is wrong and if the
>>>>>> return code of the function was checked, it will return -EINVAL.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Move this initialization out of the loop.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>> Fix for this is already and v2 of the patch is here [1]
>>>>
>>>> Ah, ok. Thanks for reviewing the patch.
>>>>
>>>> Can we find a solution to have a single entry point to sumbit patches
>>>> for all the cpuidle drivers ?
>>>>
>>>> Otherwise, consolidating them is a pain: a patch for the samsung tree,
>>>> another one for the at91 tree, etc ... and wait for all the trees to
>>>> sync before continuing to consolidate the code.
>>>>
>>>> Wouldn't be worth to move these drivers under the PM umbrella instead of
>>>> the SoC specific code ?
>>>>
>>>> Any idea to simplify the cpuidle consolidation and maintenance ?
>>>
>>> Adding Arnd and Olof to this discussion since atleast the ARM drivers
>>> go through their arm-soc tree.
>>>
>>> Given the work you're putting in to consolidate the drivers, perhaps
>>> they can insist that idle drivers get acked by you?
>>>
>> Not to create controversy but as a general rule there is nothing
>> like *insisting* ack on patches for merge apart from the official
>> maintainers(gate keepers).
>>
>> Having said that, its always good to get more reviews and acks so
>> that better code gets merged.
>>
>> This just my personal opinion.
> 
> I'm not asking for special treatment here. :) I'm requesting one set
> of maintainers (arm-soc maintainers) to push back on changes that
> don't get platform idle drivers in sync with the consolidation work
> that is currently ongoing.
> 
> This will speed up the process since it is hard to track every
> SoC-specific list for these changes. Some platform maintainers might
> not even be aware of it (those that Daniel hasn't modified yet). A
> similar approach seems to have worked for common clock, DT, pinmux,
> etc.
> 
Every patch gets pulled into arm-soc/arm-core has to be posted on
LAKML. So as long as everybody follows that rule, there is no need to
track every SoC lists. And what I have seen so far every this rule
has been followed well.

Regards,
Santosh

How to facilitate the cpuidle drivers to go to the same direction (Was: Re: [PATCH 4/9] ARM: OMAP4: cpuidle: fix wrong driver initialization)

[Daniel Lezcano]

On 03/29/2013 04:10 PM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
> On Friday 29 March 2013 06:20 PM, Amit Kucheria wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 5:50 PM, Santosh Shilimkar
>> <santosh.shilimkar@ti.com> wrote:
>>> On Friday 29 March 2013 05:26 PM, Amit Kucheria wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Daniel Lezcano
>>>> <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> wrote:
>>>>> On 03/29/2013 11:38 AM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
>>>>>> On Friday 29 March 2013 04:01 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>>>>>> The driver is initialized several times. This is wrong and if the
>>>>>>> return code of the function was checked, it will return -EINVAL.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Move this initialization out of the loop.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> Fix for this is already and v2 of the patch is here [1]
>>>>>
>>>>> Ah, ok. Thanks for reviewing the patch.
>>>>>
>>>>> Can we find a solution to have a single entry point to sumbit patches
>>>>> for all the cpuidle drivers ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Otherwise, consolidating them is a pain: a patch for the samsung tree,
>>>>> another one for the at91 tree, etc ... and wait for all the trees to
>>>>> sync before continuing to consolidate the code.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wouldn't be worth to move these drivers under the PM umbrella instead of
>>>>> the SoC specific code ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Any idea to simplify the cpuidle consolidation and maintenance ?
>>>>
>>>> Adding Arnd and Olof to this discussion since atleast the ARM drivers
>>>> go through their arm-soc tree.
>>>>
>>>> Given the work you're putting in to consolidate the drivers, perhaps
>>>> they can insist that idle drivers get acked by you?
>>>>
>>> Not to create controversy but as a general rule there is nothing
>>> like *insisting* ack on patches for merge apart from the official
>>> maintainers(gate keepers).
>>>
>>> Having said that, its always good to get more reviews and acks so
>>> that better code gets merged.
>>>
>>> This just my personal opinion.
>>
>> I'm not asking for special treatment here. :) I'm requesting one set
>> of maintainers (arm-soc maintainers) to push back on changes that
>> don't get platform idle drivers in sync with the consolidation work
>> that is currently ongoing.
>>
>> This will speed up the process since it is hard to track every
>> SoC-specific list for these changes. Some platform maintainers might
>> not even be aware of it (those that Daniel hasn't modified yet). A
>> similar approach seems to have worked for common clock, DT, pinmux,
>> etc.
>>
> Every patch gets pulled into arm-soc/arm-core has to be posted on
> LAKML. So as long as everybody follows that rule, there is no need to
> track every SoC lists. And what I have seen so far every this rule
> has been followed well.

(Added Benjamin, Deepthi and Paul)

I don't think everybody is following this rule, patches go to the SoC
maintainer's tree without sometimes going through lakml.

Furthermore, there is not only ARM, there is also acpi_idle, intel_idle,
pseries_idle and sh_idle, respectively located in:

drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c
drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c
drivers/idle/intel_idle.c

These ones above are under linux-pm, that is Rafael, like cpuidle, even
if it is not marked in the MAINTAINERS file, so that should be ok.

And there is also:

arch/sh/kernel/cpu/shmobile/cpuidle.c
arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/processor_idle.c

And hopefully, some others in the right place, calxeda_idle and
kirwood_idle located in drivers/cpuidle.

In the maintainer file, there is no information about cpuidle at all.

For example, if someone modify the cpuidle framework allowing to
consolidate the code across the different drivers, we have to wait for
the merge before using the new api into the different drivers.
If we follow strictly the path of the merge tree we fall into a scenario
where consolidating the drivers takes a loooooong time.

From my POV, *all* the cpuidle drivers must go under drivers/cpuidle,
like cpufreq and pass through a single entry point to apply the patches,
so the cpuidle framework and the drivers are always synced.

If everyone agree and we reach this consensus, then we can work to move
these drivers to a single place.

I think Amit was suggesting to Cc me in the meantime, so while we are
moving these drivers to this place, I can help to ensure we go to the
same direction.

For example, Arnd Cc'ed me about the zynq cpuidle driver when it has
been posted and, after review, it appeared it was totally obsolete wrt
the modifications we did this year.

I propose first to add an entry in MAINTAINERS:

diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
index 4cf5fd3..5b5ab87 100644
--- a/MAINTAINERS
+++ b/MAINTAINERS
@@ -2206,6 +2206,15 @@ S:       Maintained
 F:     drivers/cpufreq/
 F:     include/linux/cpufreq.h

+CPU IDLE DRIVERS
+M:      Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl>
+L:      cpuidle@vger.kernel.org
+L:      linux-pm@vger.kernel.org
+S:      Maintained
+F:      drivers/cpuidle/
+F:      include/linux/cpuidle.h
+
 CPUID/MSR DRIVER
 M:     "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
 S:     Maintained

Does it make sense ?

Thanks
  -- Daniel


-- 
 <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog

Re: How to facilitate the cpuidle drivers to go to the same direction (Was: Re: [PATCH 4/9] ARM: OMAP4: cpuidle: fix wrong driver initialization)

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Friday, March 29, 2013 04:50:55 PM Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 03/29/2013 04:10 PM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
> > On Friday 29 March 2013 06:20 PM, Amit Kucheria wrote:
> >> On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 5:50 PM, Santosh Shilimkar
> >> <santosh.shilimkar@ti.com> wrote:
> >>> On Friday 29 March 2013 05:26 PM, Amit Kucheria wrote:
> >>>> On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Daniel Lezcano
> >>>> <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> wrote:
> >>>>> On 03/29/2013 11:38 AM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
> >>>>>> On Friday 29 March 2013 04:01 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> >>>>>>> The driver is initialized several times. This is wrong and if the
> >>>>>>> return code of the function was checked, it will return -EINVAL.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Move this initialization out of the loop.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
> >>>>>>> ---
> >>>>>> Fix for this is already and v2 of the patch is here [1]
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Ah, ok. Thanks for reviewing the patch.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Can we find a solution to have a single entry point to sumbit patches
> >>>>> for all the cpuidle drivers ?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Otherwise, consolidating them is a pain: a patch for the samsung tree,
> >>>>> another one for the at91 tree, etc ... and wait for all the trees to
> >>>>> sync before continuing to consolidate the code.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Wouldn't be worth to move these drivers under the PM umbrella instead of
> >>>>> the SoC specific code ?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Any idea to simplify the cpuidle consolidation and maintenance ?
> >>>>
> >>>> Adding Arnd and Olof to this discussion since atleast the ARM drivers
> >>>> go through their arm-soc tree.
> >>>>
> >>>> Given the work you're putting in to consolidate the drivers, perhaps
> >>>> they can insist that idle drivers get acked by you?
> >>>>
> >>> Not to create controversy but as a general rule there is nothing
> >>> like *insisting* ack on patches for merge apart from the official
> >>> maintainers(gate keepers).
> >>>
> >>> Having said that, its always good to get more reviews and acks so
> >>> that better code gets merged.
> >>>
> >>> This just my personal opinion.
> >>
> >> I'm not asking for special treatment here. :) I'm requesting one set
> >> of maintainers (arm-soc maintainers) to push back on changes that
> >> don't get platform idle drivers in sync with the consolidation work
> >> that is currently ongoing.
> >>
> >> This will speed up the process since it is hard to track every
> >> SoC-specific list for these changes. Some platform maintainers might
> >> not even be aware of it (those that Daniel hasn't modified yet). A
> >> similar approach seems to have worked for common clock, DT, pinmux,
> >> etc.
> >>
> > Every patch gets pulled into arm-soc/arm-core has to be posted on
> > LAKML. So as long as everybody follows that rule, there is no need to
> > track every SoC lists. And what I have seen so far every this rule
> > has been followed well.
> 
> (Added Benjamin, Deepthi and Paul)
> 
> I don't think everybody is following this rule, patches go to the SoC
> maintainer's tree without sometimes going through lakml.
> 
> Furthermore, there is not only ARM, there is also acpi_idle, intel_idle,
> pseries_idle and sh_idle, respectively located in:
> 
> drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c
> drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c
> drivers/idle/intel_idle.c
> 
> These ones above are under linux-pm, that is Rafael, like cpuidle, even
> if it is not marked in the MAINTAINERS file, so that should be ok.
> 
> And there is also:
> 
> arch/sh/kernel/cpu/shmobile/cpuidle.c
> arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/processor_idle.c
> 
> And hopefully, some others in the right place, calxeda_idle and
> kirwood_idle located in drivers/cpuidle.
> 
> In the maintainer file, there is no information about cpuidle at all.
> 
> For example, if someone modify the cpuidle framework allowing to
> consolidate the code across the different drivers, we have to wait for
> the merge before using the new api into the different drivers.
> If we follow strictly the path of the merge tree we fall into a scenario
> where consolidating the drivers takes a loooooong time.
> 
> From my POV, *all* the cpuidle drivers must go under drivers/cpuidle,
> like cpufreq and pass through a single entry point to apply the patches,
> so the cpuidle framework and the drivers are always synced.
> 
> If everyone agree and we reach this consensus, then we can work to move
> these drivers to a single place.
> 
> I think Amit was suggesting to Cc me in the meantime, so while we are
> moving these drivers to this place, I can help to ensure we go to the
> same direction.
> 
> For example, Arnd Cc'ed me about the zynq cpuidle driver when it has
> been posted and, after review, it appeared it was totally obsolete wrt
> the modifications we did this year.
> 
> I propose first to add an entry in MAINTAINERS:
> 
> diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
> index 4cf5fd3..5b5ab87 100644
> --- a/MAINTAINERS
> +++ b/MAINTAINERS
> @@ -2206,6 +2206,15 @@ S:       Maintained
>  F:     drivers/cpufreq/
>  F:     include/linux/cpufreq.h
> 
> +CPU IDLE DRIVERS
> +M:      Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl>
> +L:      cpuidle@vger.kernel.org
> +L:      linux-pm@vger.kernel.org
> +S:      Maintained
> +F:      drivers/cpuidle/
> +F:      include/linux/cpuidle.h
> +
>  CPUID/MSR DRIVER
>  M:     "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
>  S:     Maintained
> 
> Does it make sense ?

Yes, it does to me. :-)

That said, I'm not sure if moving the existing cpuidle drivers to that
directory solves any problems.  If somebody wants to keep their cpudile
driver in his/her arch or platform, and there may be reasons for that,
it's basically fine by me.

Thanks,
Rafael


-- 
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.

Re: How to facilitate the cpuidle drivers to go to the same direction (Was: Re: [PATCH 4/9] ARM: OMAP4: cpuidle: fix wrong driver initialization)

[Deepthi Dharwar]

On 03/29/2013 09:20 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 03/29/2013 04:10 PM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
>> On Friday 29 March 2013 06:20 PM, Amit Kucheria wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 5:50 PM, Santosh Shilimkar
>>> <santosh.shilimkar-l0cyMroinI0@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>>>> On Friday 29 March 2013 05:26 PM, Amit Kucheria wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Daniel Lezcano
>>>>> <daniel.lezcano-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>>>>>> On 03/29/2013 11:38 AM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
>>>>>>> On Friday 29 March 2013 04:01 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>>>>>>> The driver is initialized several times. This is wrong and if the
>>>>>>>> return code of the function was checked, it will return -EINVAL.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Move this initialization out of the loop.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>> Fix for this is already and v2 of the patch is here [1]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ah, ok. Thanks for reviewing the patch.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can we find a solution to have a single entry point to sumbit patches
>>>>>> for all the cpuidle drivers ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Otherwise, consolidating them is a pain: a patch for the samsung tree,
>>>>>> another one for the at91 tree, etc ... and wait for all the trees to
>>>>>> sync before continuing to consolidate the code.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wouldn't be worth to move these drivers under the PM umbrella instead of
>>>>>> the SoC specific code ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Any idea to simplify the cpuidle consolidation and maintenance ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Adding Arnd and Olof to this discussion since atleast the ARM drivers
>>>>> go through their arm-soc tree.
>>>>>
>>>>> Given the work you're putting in to consolidate the drivers, perhaps
>>>>> they can insist that idle drivers get acked by you?
>>>>>
>>>> Not to create controversy but as a general rule there is nothing
>>>> like *insisting* ack on patches for merge apart from the official
>>>> maintainers(gate keepers).
>>>>
>>>> Having said that, its always good to get more reviews and acks so
>>>> that better code gets merged.
>>>>
>>>> This just my personal opinion.
>>>
>>> I'm not asking for special treatment here. :) I'm requesting one set
>>> of maintainers (arm-soc maintainers) to push back on changes that
>>> don't get platform idle drivers in sync with the consolidation work
>>> that is currently ongoing.
>>>
>>> This will speed up the process since it is hard to track every
>>> SoC-specific list for these changes. Some platform maintainers might
>>> not even be aware of it (those that Daniel hasn't modified yet). A
>>> similar approach seems to have worked for common clock, DT, pinmux,
>>> etc.
>>>
>> Every patch gets pulled into arm-soc/arm-core has to be posted on
>> LAKML. So as long as everybody follows that rule, there is no need to
>> track every SoC lists. And what I have seen so far every this rule
>> has been followed well.
> 
> (Added Benjamin, Deepthi and Paul)
> 
> I don't think everybody is following this rule, patches go to the SoC
> maintainer's tree without sometimes going through lakml.
> 
> Furthermore, there is not only ARM, there is also acpi_idle, intel_idle,
> pseries_idle and sh_idle, respectively located in:
> 
> drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c
> drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c
> drivers/idle/intel_idle.c
> 
> These ones above are under linux-pm, that is Rafael, like cpuidle, even
> if it is not marked in the MAINTAINERS file, so that should be ok.
> 
> And there is also:
> 
> arch/sh/kernel/cpu/shmobile/cpuidle.c
> arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/processor_idle.c
> 
> And hopefully, some others in the right place, calxeda_idle and
> kirwood_idle located in drivers/cpuidle.
> 
> In the maintainer file, there is no information about cpuidle at all.
> 
> For example, if someone modify the cpuidle framework allowing to
> consolidate the code across the different drivers, we have to wait for
> the merge before using the new api into the different drivers.
> If we follow strictly the path of the merge tree we fall into a scenario
> where consolidating the drivers takes a loooooong time.
> 
> From my POV, *all* the cpuidle drivers must go under drivers/cpuidle,
> like cpufreq and pass through a single entry point to apply the patches,
> so the cpuidle framework and the drivers are always synced.

I can very much relate to the above mentioned problem, where code
modifications done as a part of cpuidle framework needs to be
reflected in every arch back-end cpuidle driver.
We do have added advantages in moving
all the back-end drivers into drivers/cpuidle.
This would help us achieve better reviews, easier consolidations
and more importantly maintaining sync btw drivers and framework and
the up-streaming process.

But then, this means we get all the
arch specific code out under drivers/cpuidle
which can be very messy. Also instances where the changes
are specifically tied only to the  architecture of the back-end driver
(SoC specific), it is absolutely necessary to get SoC maintainer's review.

Cheers,
Deepthi

> If everyone agree and we reach this consensus, then we can work to move
> these drivers to a single place.
> 
> I think Amit was suggesting to Cc me in the meantime, so while we are
> moving these drivers to this place, I can help to ensure we go to the
> same direction.
> 
> For example, Arnd Cc'ed me about the zynq cpuidle driver when it has
> been posted and, after review, it appeared it was totally obsolete wrt
> the modifications we did this year.
> 
> I propose first to add an entry in MAINTAINERS:
> 
> diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
> index 4cf5fd3..5b5ab87 100644
> --- a/MAINTAINERS
> +++ b/MAINTAINERS
> @@ -2206,6 +2206,15 @@ S:       Maintained
>  F:     drivers/cpufreq/
>  F:     include/linux/cpufreq.h
> 
> +CPU IDLE DRIVERS
> +M:      Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw-KKrjLPT3xs0@public.gmane.org>
> +L:      cpuidle-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
> +L:      linux-pm-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
> +S:      Maintained
> +F:      drivers/cpuidle/
> +F:      include/linux/cpuidle.h
> +
>  CPUID/MSR DRIVER
>  M:     "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa-YMNOUZJC4hwAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
>  S:     Maintained
> 
> Does it make sense ?
> 
> Thanks
>   -- Daniel
> 
> 

Re: How to facilitate the cpuidle drivers to go to the same direction (Was: Re: [PATCH 4/9] ARM: OMAP4: cpuidle: fix wrong driver initialization)

[Daniel Lezcano]

On 04/01/2013 08:05 AM, Deepthi Dharwar wrote:
> On 03/29/2013 09:20 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> On 03/29/2013 04:10 PM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
>>> On Friday 29 March 2013 06:20 PM, Amit Kucheria wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 5:50 PM, Santosh Shilimkar
>>>> <santosh.shilimkar-l0cyMroinI0@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>>>>> On Friday 29 March 2013 05:26 PM, Amit Kucheria wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Daniel Lezcano
>>>>>> <daniel.lezcano-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 03/29/2013 11:38 AM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Friday 29 March 2013 04:01 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>>>>>>>> The driver is initialized several times. This is wrong and if the
>>>>>>>>> return code of the function was checked, it will return -EINVAL.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Move this initialization out of the loop.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>> Fix for this is already and v2 of the patch is here [1]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ah, ok. Thanks for reviewing the patch.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Can we find a solution to have a single entry point to sumbit patches
>>>>>>> for all the cpuidle drivers ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Otherwise, consolidating them is a pain: a patch for the samsung tree,
>>>>>>> another one for the at91 tree, etc ... and wait for all the trees to
>>>>>>> sync before continuing to consolidate the code.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wouldn't be worth to move these drivers under the PM umbrella instead of
>>>>>>> the SoC specific code ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Any idea to simplify the cpuidle consolidation and maintenance ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Adding Arnd and Olof to this discussion since atleast the ARM drivers
>>>>>> go through their arm-soc tree.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Given the work you're putting in to consolidate the drivers, perhaps
>>>>>> they can insist that idle drivers get acked by you?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Not to create controversy but as a general rule there is nothing
>>>>> like *insisting* ack on patches for merge apart from the official
>>>>> maintainers(gate keepers).
>>>>>
>>>>> Having said that, its always good to get more reviews and acks so
>>>>> that better code gets merged.
>>>>>
>>>>> This just my personal opinion.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not asking for special treatment here. :) I'm requesting one set
>>>> of maintainers (arm-soc maintainers) to push back on changes that
>>>> don't get platform idle drivers in sync with the consolidation work
>>>> that is currently ongoing.
>>>>
>>>> This will speed up the process since it is hard to track every
>>>> SoC-specific list for these changes. Some platform maintainers might
>>>> not even be aware of it (those that Daniel hasn't modified yet). A
>>>> similar approach seems to have worked for common clock, DT, pinmux,
>>>> etc.
>>>>
>>> Every patch gets pulled into arm-soc/arm-core has to be posted on
>>> LAKML. So as long as everybody follows that rule, there is no need to
>>> track every SoC lists. And what I have seen so far every this rule
>>> has been followed well.
>>
>> (Added Benjamin, Deepthi and Paul)
>>
>> I don't think everybody is following this rule, patches go to the SoC
>> maintainer's tree without sometimes going through lakml.
>>
>> Furthermore, there is not only ARM, there is also acpi_idle, intel_idle,
>> pseries_idle and sh_idle, respectively located in:
>>
>> drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c
>> drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c
>> drivers/idle/intel_idle.c
>>
>> These ones above are under linux-pm, that is Rafael, like cpuidle, even
>> if it is not marked in the MAINTAINERS file, so that should be ok.
>>
>> And there is also:
>>
>> arch/sh/kernel/cpu/shmobile/cpuidle.c
>> arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/processor_idle.c
>>
>> And hopefully, some others in the right place, calxeda_idle and
>> kirwood_idle located in drivers/cpuidle.
>>
>> In the maintainer file, there is no information about cpuidle at all.
>>
>> For example, if someone modify the cpuidle framework allowing to
>> consolidate the code across the different drivers, we have to wait for
>> the merge before using the new api into the different drivers.
>> If we follow strictly the path of the merge tree we fall into a scenario
>> where consolidating the drivers takes a loooooong time.
>>
>> From my POV, *all* the cpuidle drivers must go under drivers/cpuidle,
>> like cpufreq and pass through a single entry point to apply the patches,
>> so the cpuidle framework and the drivers are always synced.
> 
> I can very much relate to the above mentioned problem, where code
> modifications done as a part of cpuidle framework needs to be
> reflected in every arch back-end cpuidle driver.
> We do have added advantages in moving
> all the back-end drivers into drivers/cpuidle.
> This would help us achieve better reviews, easier consolidations
> and more importantly maintaining sync btw drivers and framework and
> the up-streaming process.
> 
> But then, this means we get all the
> arch specific code out under drivers/cpuidle
> which can be very messy. Also instances where the changes
> are specifically tied only to the  architecture of the back-end driver
> (SoC specific), it is absolutely necessary to get SoC maintainer's review.

Yes, I agree.

This is why an important work of separating the PM code from the cpuidle
driver must be done in order to achieve this migration.
Some of this has been done for the at91 and u8500 driver.

Thanks
  -- Daniel

> 
> Cheers,
> Deepthi
> 
>> If everyone agree and we reach this consensus, then we can work to move
>> these drivers to a single place.
>>
>> I think Amit was suggesting to Cc me in the meantime, so while we are
>> moving these drivers to this place, I can help to ensure we go to the
>> same direction.
>>
>> For example, Arnd Cc'ed me about the zynq cpuidle driver when it has
>> been posted and, after review, it appeared it was totally obsolete wrt
>> the modifications we did this year.
>>
>> I propose first to add an entry in MAINTAINERS:
>>
>> diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
>> index 4cf5fd3..5b5ab87 100644
>> --- a/MAINTAINERS
>> +++ b/MAINTAINERS
>> @@ -2206,6 +2206,15 @@ S:       Maintained
>>  F:     drivers/cpufreq/
>>  F:     include/linux/cpufreq.h
>>
>> +CPU IDLE DRIVERS
>> +M:      Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw-KKrjLPT3xs0@public.gmane.org>
>> +L:      cpuidle-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
>> +L:      linux-pm-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
>> +S:      Maintained
>> +F:      drivers/cpuidle/
>> +F:      include/linux/cpuidle.h
>> +
>>  CPUID/MSR DRIVER
>>  M:     "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa-YMNOUZJC4hwAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
>>  S:     Maintained
>>
>> Does it make sense ?
>>
>> Thanks
>>   -- Daniel
>>
>>
> 


-- 
 <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog

Re: How to facilitate the cpuidle drivers to go to the same direction (Was: Re: [PATCH 4/9] ARM: OMAP4: cpuidle: fix wrong driver initialization)

[Benjamin Herrenschmidt]

On Mon, 2013-04-01 at 11:35 +0530, Deepthi Dharwar wrote:
> But then, this means we get all the
> arch specific code out under drivers/cpuidle
> which can be very messy.

Not really no. We already have that here or there in other drivers,
it's not necessarily messy and the stuff like that can generally be made
reasonably self contained.

The main issue is that if I (powerpc) wants a fix in my
some_ppc_box_idle.c driver, especially if it needs to sync with other
arch changes, having to sync/ack with Rafael might complicate things a
bit (though not necessarily a lot).

I would probably keep the liberty of sending to Linus directly urgent
bug/regression fixes to individual cpuidle drivers relating to our archs
without waiting every now and then if for example Rafael is on
vacation :-)

>  Also instances where the changes
> are specifically tied only to the  architecture of the back-end driver
> (SoC specific), it is absolutely necessary to get SoC maintainer's
> review.

Ben.

Re: How to facilitate the cpuidle drivers to go to the same direction (Was: Re: [PATCH 4/9] ARM: OMAP4: cpuidle: fix wrong driver initialization)

[Olof Johansson]

On Mon, Apr 01, 2013 at 10:29:48AM +0200, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-04-01 at 11:35 +0530, Deepthi Dharwar wrote:
> > But then, this means we get all the
> > arch specific code out under drivers/cpuidle
> > which can be very messy.
> 
> Not really no. We already have that here or there in other drivers,
> it's not necessarily messy and the stuff like that can generally be made
> reasonably self contained.
> 
> The main issue is that if I (powerpc) wants a fix in my
> some_ppc_box_idle.c driver, especially if it needs to sync with other
> arch changes, having to sync/ack with Rafael might complicate things a
> bit (though not necessarily a lot).
> 
> I would probably keep the liberty of sending to Linus directly urgent
> bug/regression fixes to individual cpuidle drivers relating to our archs
> without waiting every now and then if for example Rafael is on
> vacation :-)

Merging them all over sounds like a good idea to me as well.

This isn't too different from how we handle other subsystems; as
architecutre maintainer you just use your judgement on what needs an ack
vs cc. Some smaller details about how the backend of the driver works
on a platform is quite different from refactoring portions of the
framework.


-Olof

[PATCH 6/9] ARM: tegra: cpuidle: remove useless initialization

[Daniel Lezcano]

dev->state_count is initialized automatically by cpuidle_register_device.

When drv->state_count is equal to dev->state_count, no need to init this
field, so removing it.

Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
---
 arch/arm/mach-tegra/cpuidle-tegra114.c |    1 -
 arch/arm/mach-tegra/cpuidle-tegra20.c  |    1 -
 arch/arm/mach-tegra/cpuidle-tegra30.c  |    1 -
 3 files changed, 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-tegra/cpuidle-tegra114.c b/arch/arm/mach-tegra/cpuidle-tegra114.c
index 0f4e8c4..c527cff 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-tegra/cpuidle-tegra114.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-tegra/cpuidle-tegra114.c
@@ -49,7 +49,6 @@ int __init tegra114_cpuidle_init(void)
 		dev = &per_cpu(tegra_idle_device, cpu);
 		dev->cpu = cpu;
 
-		dev->state_count = drv->state_count;
 		ret = cpuidle_register_device(dev);
 		if (ret) {
 			pr_err("CPU%u: CPUidle device registration failed\n",
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-tegra/cpuidle-tegra20.c b/arch/arm/mach-tegra/cpuidle-tegra20.c
index 1ad1a67..b94d76a 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-tegra/cpuidle-tegra20.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-tegra/cpuidle-tegra20.c
@@ -243,7 +243,6 @@ int __init tegra20_cpuidle_init(void)
 		dev->coupled_cpus = *cpu_possible_mask;
 #endif
 
-		dev->state_count = drv->state_count;
 		ret = cpuidle_register_device(dev);
 		if (ret) {
 			pr_err("CPU%u: CPUidle device registration failed\n",
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-tegra/cpuidle-tegra30.c b/arch/arm/mach-tegra/cpuidle-tegra30.c
index 8b50cf4..c4e01fe 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-tegra/cpuidle-tegra30.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-tegra/cpuidle-tegra30.c
@@ -176,7 +176,6 @@ int __init tegra30_cpuidle_init(void)
 		dev = &per_cpu(tegra_idle_device, cpu);
 		dev->cpu = cpu;
 
-		dev->state_count = drv->state_count;
 		ret = cpuidle_register_device(dev);
 		if (ret) {
 			pr_err("CPU%u: CPUidle device registration failed\n",
-- 
1.7.9.5

[PATCH 7/9] ARM: davinci: cpuidle: fix wrong enter function

[Daniel Lezcano]

The davinci_enter_idle is called from the cpuidle with the
cpuidle_wrap_enter function. This one does the time compution
for entering and exiting the idle function and then we call
again cpuidle_wrap_enter for cpu_do_idle. This is wrong, we
are calling recursively cpuidle_wrap_enter for nothing and
furthermore reenabling the local irq.

Remove this and replace it by the cpu_do_idle function.

Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
---
 arch/arm/mach-davinci/cpuidle.c |    8 ++------
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-davinci/cpuidle.c b/arch/arm/mach-davinci/cpuidle.c
index 5ac9e93..22d6d4a 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-davinci/cpuidle.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-davinci/cpuidle.c
@@ -50,14 +50,10 @@ static void davinci_save_ddr_power(int enter, bool pdown)
 
 /* Actual code that puts the SoC in different idle states */
 static int davinci_enter_idle(struct cpuidle_device *dev,
-				struct cpuidle_driver *drv,
-						int index)
+			      struct cpuidle_driver *drv, int index)
 {
 	davinci_save_ddr_power(1, ddr2_pdown);
-
-	index = cpuidle_wrap_enter(dev,	drv, index,
-				arm_cpuidle_simple_enter);
-
+	cpu_do_idle();
 	davinci_save_ddr_power(0, ddr2_pdown);
 
 	return index;
-- 
1.7.9.5

Re: [PATCH 7/9] ARM: davinci: cpuidle: fix wrong enter function

[Santosh Shilimkar]

On Friday 29 March 2013 04:01 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> The davinci_enter_idle is called from the cpuidle with the
> cpuidle_wrap_enter function. This one does the time compution
> for entering and exiting the idle function and then we call
> again cpuidle_wrap_enter for cpu_do_idle. This is wrong, we
> are calling recursively cpuidle_wrap_enter for nothing and
> furthermore reenabling the local irq.
> 
> Remove this and replace it by the cpu_do_idle function.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
> ---
Looks right to me.
Acked-by: Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar-l0cyMroinI0@public.gmane.org>

[PATCH 8/9] intel: cpuidle: remove stop/start critical timings

[Daniel Lezcano]

The start/stop_critical_timings are called from arch/x86/kernel/process.c
in the cpu_idle loop function.

Remove the ones in the cpuidle driver.

Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
---
 drivers/idle/intel_idle.c |    3 ---
 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/idle/intel_idle.c b/drivers/idle/intel_idle.c
index 5d66750..c99c31e 100644
--- a/drivers/idle/intel_idle.c
+++ b/drivers/idle/intel_idle.c
@@ -339,7 +339,6 @@ static int intel_idle(struct cpuidle_device *dev,
 	if (!(lapic_timer_reliable_states & (1 << (cstate))))
 		clockevents_notify(CLOCK_EVT_NOTIFY_BROADCAST_ENTER, &cpu);
 
-	stop_critical_timings();
 	if (!need_resched()) {
 
 		__monitor((void *)&current_thread_info()->flags, 0, 0);
@@ -348,8 +347,6 @@ static int intel_idle(struct cpuidle_device *dev,
 			__mwait(eax, ecx);
 	}
 
-	start_critical_timings();
-
 	if (!(lapic_timer_reliable_states & (1 << (cstate))))
 		clockevents_notify(CLOCK_EVT_NOTIFY_BROADCAST_EXIT, &cpu);
 
-- 
1.7.9.5

[PATCH 9/9] ARM: omap3: cpuidle: enable time keeping

[Daniel Lezcano]

The TIME_VALID flag is specified for the different states but
the time residency computation is not done, no tk flag, no time
computation in the idle function.

Set the en_core_tk_irqen flag to activate it.

Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
---
 arch/arm/mach-omap2/cpuidle34xx.c |    5 +++--
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/cpuidle34xx.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/cpuidle34xx.c
index 80392fc..4f67a5b 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/cpuidle34xx.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/cpuidle34xx.c
@@ -274,8 +274,9 @@ static int omap3_enter_idle_bm(struct cpuidle_device *dev,
 static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct cpuidle_device, omap3_idle_dev);
 
 static struct cpuidle_driver omap3_idle_driver = {
-	.name =		"omap3_idle",
-	.owner =	THIS_MODULE,
+	.name             = "omap3_idle",
+	.owner            = THIS_MODULE,
+	.en_core_tk_irqen = 1,
 	.states = {
 		{
 			.enter		  = omap3_enter_idle_bm,
-- 
1.7.9.5

Re: [PATCH 9/9] ARM: omap3: cpuidle: enable time keeping

[Santosh Shilimkar]

On Friday 29 March 2013 04:01 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> The TIME_VALID flag is specified for the different states but
> the time residency computation is not done, no tk flag, no time
> computation in the idle function.
> 
> Set the en_core_tk_irqen flag to activate it.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
> ---
Acked-by: Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@ti.com>

Re: [PATCH 1/9] ARM: cpuidle: remove useless declaration

[Santosh Shilimkar]

On Friday 29 March 2013 04:01 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> The noop functions code is not necessary because the header file is
> included in files which are compiled when CONFIG_CPU_IDLE is on.
> 
Well the inline function was to avoid buid breaks when
!CONFIG_CPU_IDLE.
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
> ---
Function without definition will break the build, No? Just
declaration isn't won't help to get the build through.

Ofcourse if all idle drivers are build *only when*
CONFIG_CPU_IDLE=y, then the patch is should
be fine.

Regards,
Santosh

Re: [PATCH 1/9] ARM: cpuidle: remove useless declaration

[Daniel Lezcano]

On 03/29/2013 12:40 PM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
> On Friday 29 March 2013 04:01 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> The noop functions code is not necessary because the header file is
>> included in files which are compiled when CONFIG_CPU_IDLE is on.
>>
> Well the inline function was to avoid buid breaks when
> !CONFIG_CPU_IDLE.
>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
>> ---
> Function without definition will break the build, No? Just
> declaration isn't won't help to get the build through.
> 
> Ofcourse if all idle drivers are build *only when*
> CONFIG_CPU_IDLE=y, then the patch is should
> be fine.

Yes, it is case AFAICT.


-- 
 <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog

[PATCH 1/9] ARM: cpuidle: remove useless declaration

[Daniel Lezcano]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 243 bytes --]


Hi Rafael,

I noticed this patchset went to the linux-arm-project in patchwork but
it was addressed to you / linux-pm. AFAIU, you rely on patchwork to
manage the patches, I was wondering if you could have missed them ?

Thanks
  -- Daniel




[-- Attachment #2: Attached Message Part --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 0 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH 1/9] ARM: cpuidle: remove useless declaration

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Wednesday, April 03, 2013 12:56:59 PM Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> 
> Hi Rafael,
> 
> I noticed this patchset went to the linux-arm-project in patchwork but
> it was addressed to you / linux-pm. AFAIU, you rely on patchwork to
> manage the patches, I was wondering if you could have missed them ?

I didn't miss it, but I thought that the ARM people would take the patches.

If I'm supposed to take those patches, I need ACKs from every maintainer in
question.  If the patches have been ACKed already, please resend them with the
ACKs.

Thanks,
Rafael


-- 
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.

Re: [PATCH 1/9] ARM: cpuidle: remove useless declaration

[Daniel Lezcano]

On 04/03/2013 01:07 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 03, 2013 12:56:59 PM Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>
>> Hi Rafael,
>>
>> I noticed this patchset went to the linux-arm-project in patchwork but
>> it was addressed to you / linux-pm. AFAIU, you rely on patchwork to
>> manage the patches, I was wondering if you could have missed them ?
> 
> I didn't miss it, but I thought that the ARM people would take the patches.
> 
> If I'm supposed to take those patches, I need ACKs from every maintainer in
> question.  If the patches have been ACKed already, please resend them with the
> ACKs.

Ok.

-- 
 <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog

[PATCH 1/9] ARM: cpuidle: remove useless declaration

[Daniel Lezcano]

The noop functions code is not necessary because the header file is
included in files which are compiled when CONFIG_CPU_IDLE is on.

Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
---
 arch/arm/include/asm/cpuidle.h |    7 +------
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/cpuidle.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/cpuidle.h
index 2fca60a..7367787 100644
--- a/arch/arm/include/asm/cpuidle.h
+++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/cpuidle.h
@@ -1,13 +1,8 @@
 #ifndef __ASM_ARM_CPUIDLE_H
 #define __ASM_ARM_CPUIDLE_H
 
-#ifdef CONFIG_CPU_IDLE
 extern int arm_cpuidle_simple_enter(struct cpuidle_device *dev,
-		struct cpuidle_driver *drv, int index);
-#else
-static inline int arm_cpuidle_simple_enter(struct cpuidle_device *dev,
-		struct cpuidle_driver *drv, int index) { return -ENODEV; }
-#endif
+				    struct cpuidle_driver *drv, int index);
 
 /* Common ARM WFI state */
 #define ARM_CPUIDLE_WFI_STATE_PWR(p) {\
-- 
1.7.9.5

Re: [PATCH 1/9] ARM: cpuidle: remove useless declaration

[Daniel Lezcano]

On 04/03/2013 02:15 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> The noop functions code is not necessary because the header file is
> included in files which are compiled when CONFIG_CPU_IDLE is on.
>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>

I have been involved in the development of this file. I know Rob is no
longer working on this neither monitoring the code.

Russell are you ok with this patch ? Rafael needs your ack to take this
patch into its tree.

Thanks

-- Daniel

> ---
>  arch/arm/include/asm/cpuidle.h |    7 +------
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/cpuidle.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/cpuidle.h
> index 2fca60a..7367787 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/cpuidle.h
> +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/cpuidle.h
> @@ -1,13 +1,8 @@
>  #ifndef __ASM_ARM_CPUIDLE_H
>  #define __ASM_ARM_CPUIDLE_H
>  
> -#ifdef CONFIG_CPU_IDLE
>  extern int arm_cpuidle_simple_enter(struct cpuidle_device *dev,
> -		struct cpuidle_driver *drv, int index);
> -#else
> -static inline int arm_cpuidle_simple_enter(struct cpuidle_device *dev,
> -		struct cpuidle_driver *drv, int index) { return -ENODEV; }
> -#endif
> +				    struct cpuidle_driver *drv, int index);
>  
>  /* Common ARM WFI state */
>  #define ARM_CPUIDLE_WFI_STATE_PWR(p) {\


-- 
 <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog

Re: [PATCH 1/9] ARM: cpuidle: remove useless declaration

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Wednesday, April 03, 2013 02:23:23 PM Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 04/03/2013 02:15 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> > The noop functions code is not necessary because the header file is
> > included in files which are compiled when CONFIG_CPU_IDLE is on.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
> 
> I have been involved in the development of this file. I know Rob is no
> longer working on this neither monitoring the code.
> 
> Russell are you ok with this patch ? Rafael needs your ack to take this
> patch into its tree.

Well, since nothing in the cpuidle directory seems to really depend on this
patch, my suggestion is to merge it through the ARM tree when suitable.

Thanks,
Rafael


> > ---
> >  arch/arm/include/asm/cpuidle.h |    7 +------
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/cpuidle.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/cpuidle.h
> > index 2fca60a..7367787 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/cpuidle.h
> > +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/cpuidle.h
> > @@ -1,13 +1,8 @@
> >  #ifndef __ASM_ARM_CPUIDLE_H
> >  #define __ASM_ARM_CPUIDLE_H
> >  
> > -#ifdef CONFIG_CPU_IDLE
> >  extern int arm_cpuidle_simple_enter(struct cpuidle_device *dev,
> > -		struct cpuidle_driver *drv, int index);
> > -#else
> > -static inline int arm_cpuidle_simple_enter(struct cpuidle_device *dev,
> > -		struct cpuidle_driver *drv, int index) { return -ENODEV; }
> > -#endif
> > +				    struct cpuidle_driver *drv, int index);
> >  
> >  /* Common ARM WFI state */
> >  #define ARM_CPUIDLE_WFI_STATE_PWR(p) {\
> 
> 
> 
-- 
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.

Re: [PATCH 1/9] ARM: cpuidle: remove useless declaration

[Daniel Lezcano]

On 04/08/2013 10:50 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 03, 2013 02:23:23 PM Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> On 04/03/2013 02:15 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>> The noop functions code is not necessary because the header file is
>>> included in files which are compiled when CONFIG_CPU_IDLE is on.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
>>
>> I have been involved in the development of this file. I know Rob is no
>> longer working on this neither monitoring the code.
>>
>> Russell are you ok with this patch ? Rafael needs your ack to take this
>> patch into its tree.
> 
> Well, since nothing in the cpuidle directory seems to really depend on this
> patch, my suggestion is to merge it through the ARM tree when suitable.

Ok.


>>> ---
>>>  arch/arm/include/asm/cpuidle.h |    7 +------
>>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/cpuidle.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/cpuidle.h
>>> index 2fca60a..7367787 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/cpuidle.h
>>> +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/cpuidle.h
>>> @@ -1,13 +1,8 @@
>>>  #ifndef __ASM_ARM_CPUIDLE_H
>>>  #define __ASM_ARM_CPUIDLE_H
>>>  
>>> -#ifdef CONFIG_CPU_IDLE
>>>  extern int arm_cpuidle_simple_enter(struct cpuidle_device *dev,
>>> -		struct cpuidle_driver *drv, int index);
>>> -#else
>>> -static inline int arm_cpuidle_simple_enter(struct cpuidle_device *dev,
>>> -		struct cpuidle_driver *drv, int index) { return -ENODEV; }
>>> -#endif
>>> +				    struct cpuidle_driver *drv, int index);
>>>  
>>>  /* Common ARM WFI state */
>>>  #define ARM_CPUIDLE_WFI_STATE_PWR(p) {\
>>
>>
>>


-- 
 <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog

Re: [PATCH 1/9] ARM: cpuidle: remove useless declaration

[Russell King - ARM Linux]

On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 02:23:23PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 04/03/2013 02:15 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> > The noop functions code is not necessary because the header file is
> > included in files which are compiled when CONFIG_CPU_IDLE is on.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
> 
> I have been involved in the development of this file. I know Rob is no
> longer working on this neither monitoring the code.
> 
> Russell are you ok with this patch ? Rafael needs your ack to take this
> patch into its tree.

I don't know - the description doesn't make it clear.  Surely, what you
checked was that this file is _not_ included in any file which is built
when CONFIG_CPU_IDLE is disabled.  In other words, when CONFIG_CPU_IDLE
is not defined, arm_cpuidle_simple_enter() is never referenced.

If that is the case, then it's just that the patch description is the
opposite of what it should be for this patch - and then the patch and
description match and I don't see any reason to say no to it.

Then comes the issue of who takes the patch.  It looks like Rafael
would like me to.  I'm fine with that, but it will need to go into the
patch system as I'm rather busy catching up with email, and I expect
to be catching up for at least the rest of this month.

Re: [PATCH 1/9] ARM: cpuidle: remove useless declaration

[Daniel Lezcano]

On 04/18/2013 04:13 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 02:23:23PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> On 04/03/2013 02:15 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>> The noop functions code is not necessary because the header file is
>>> included in files which are compiled when CONFIG_CPU_IDLE is on.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
>>
>> I have been involved in the development of this file. I know Rob is no
>> longer working on this neither monitoring the code.
>>
>> Russell are you ok with this patch ? Rafael needs your ack to take this
>> patch into its tree.
> 
> I don't know - the description doesn't make it clear.  Surely, what you
> checked was that this file is _not_ included in any file which is built
> when CONFIG_CPU_IDLE is disabled.  In other words, when CONFIG_CPU_IDLE
> is not defined, arm_cpuidle_simple_enter() is never referenced.
> 
> If that is the case, then it's just that the patch description is the
> opposite of what it should be for this patch - and then the patch and
> description match and I don't see any reason to say no to it.
> 
> Then comes the issue of who takes the patch.  It looks like Rafael
> would like me to.

Actually Rafael was willing to take the patch if you ack it.


-- 
 <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog

Re: [PATCH 1/9] ARM: cpuidle: remove useless declaration

[Russell King - ARM Linux]

On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 04:31:43PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 04/18/2013 04:13 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 02:23:23PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> >> On 04/03/2013 02:15 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> >>> The noop functions code is not necessary because the header file is
> >>> included in files which are compiled when CONFIG_CPU_IDLE is on.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
> >>
> >> I have been involved in the development of this file. I know Rob is no
> >> longer working on this neither monitoring the code.
> >>
> >> Russell are you ok with this patch ? Rafael needs your ack to take this
> >> patch into its tree.
> > 
> > I don't know - the description doesn't make it clear.  Surely, what you
> > checked was that this file is _not_ included in any file which is built
> > when CONFIG_CPU_IDLE is disabled.  In other words, when CONFIG_CPU_IDLE
> > is not defined, arm_cpuidle_simple_enter() is never referenced.
> > 
> > If that is the case, then it's just that the patch description is the
> > opposite of what it should be for this patch - and then the patch and
> > description match and I don't see any reason to say no to it.
> > 
> > Then comes the issue of who takes the patch.  It looks like Rafael
> > would like me to.
> 
> Actually Rafael was willing to take the patch if you ack it.

Well, I want to see a proper description on the patch which describes
what it _is_ doing before I ack it.  The existing description is just
plain confusing.

Re: [PATCH 1/9] ARM: cpuidle: remove useless declaration

[Daniel Lezcano]

On 04/18/2013 05:42 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 04:31:43PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> On 04/18/2013 04:13 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 02:23:23PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>>> On 04/03/2013 02:15 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>>>> The noop functions code is not necessary because the header file is
>>>>> included in files which are compiled when CONFIG_CPU_IDLE is on.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
>>>>
>>>> I have been involved in the development of this file. I know Rob is no
>>>> longer working on this neither monitoring the code.
>>>>
>>>> Russell are you ok with this patch ? Rafael needs your ack to take this
>>>> patch into its tree.
>>>
>>> I don't know - the description doesn't make it clear.  Surely, what you
>>> checked was that this file is _not_ included in any file which is built
>>> when CONFIG_CPU_IDLE is disabled.  In other words, when CONFIG_CPU_IDLE
>>> is not defined, arm_cpuidle_simple_enter() is never referenced.
>>>
>>> If that is the case, then it's just that the patch description is the
>>> opposite of what it should be for this patch - and then the patch and
>>> description match and I don't see any reason to say no to it.
>>>
>>> Then comes the issue of who takes the patch.  It looks like Rafael
>>> would like me to.
>>
>> Actually Rafael was willing to take the patch if you ack it.
> 
> Well, I want to see a proper description on the patch which describes
> what it _is_ doing before I ack it.  The existing description is just
> plain confusing.

Ok, I will resend.

Thanks
  -- Daniel


-- 
 <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog

Re: [PATCH 1/9] ARM: cpuidle: remove useless declaration

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Wednesday, April 03, 2013 02:15:14 PM Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> The noop functions code is not necessary because the header file is
> included in files which are compiled when CONFIG_CPU_IDLE is on.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>

I need an ACK for this one.

Thanks,
Rafael


> ---
>  arch/arm/include/asm/cpuidle.h |    7 +------
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/cpuidle.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/cpuidle.h
> index 2fca60a..7367787 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/cpuidle.h
> +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/cpuidle.h
> @@ -1,13 +1,8 @@
>  #ifndef __ASM_ARM_CPUIDLE_H
>  #define __ASM_ARM_CPUIDLE_H
>  
> -#ifdef CONFIG_CPU_IDLE
>  extern int arm_cpuidle_simple_enter(struct cpuidle_device *dev,
> -		struct cpuidle_driver *drv, int index);
> -#else
> -static inline int arm_cpuidle_simple_enter(struct cpuidle_device *dev,
> -		struct cpuidle_driver *drv, int index) { return -ENODEV; }
> -#endif
> +				    struct cpuidle_driver *drv, int index);
>  
>  /* Common ARM WFI state */
>  #define ARM_CPUIDLE_WFI_STATE_PWR(p) {\
> 
-- 
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.