From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Gleixner Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpuidle : handle clockevent notify from the cpuidle framework Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 22:21:26 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: References: <1363795033-26445-1-git-send-email-daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Return-path: Received: from www.linutronix.de ([62.245.132.108]:53518 "EHLO Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751149Ab3CTVVe (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Mar 2013 17:21:34 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1363795033-26445-1-git-send-email-daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org To: Daniel Lezcano Cc: rjw@sisk.pl, linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org, lenb@kernel.org, patches@linaro.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 20 Mar 2013, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > When a cpu enters a deep idle state, the local timers are stopped and > the time framework falls back to the timer device used as a broadcast > timer. > > The different cpuidle drivers are calling clockevents_notify ENTER/EXIT > when the idle state stops the local timer. > > The proposed patch introduces a new flag CPUIDLE_FLAG_TIMER_STOP to let Please stop using "proposed patch ...." wording in a patch description. The changelog you submit with your patch should be applicable w/o rewriting. > the cpuidle framework to call clockevents_notify instead of duplicating > again and again these lines in all the cpuidle drivers. That's a good enough reason, really. So that paragraph should be something like: "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." Ideally you would follow up with two or three drivers converted to that new infrastructure instead of sending that patch standalone. That way reviewers can really see the benefit in terms of reduced code duplication. > Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano Other than the above rant: Reviewed-by: Thomas Gleixner