On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 09:49:12PM +0000, Sebastian Capella wrote:
> On 18 March 2014 11:08, Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > + * When we reach the max number of CPU idle states or
> >> > + * head_idx == curr_idx (empty nodes queue) we are done.
> >> > + */
> >> > + head_idx = curr_idx = cnt;
> >> > +
> >> > + do {
> >> > + curr_idx = parse_idle_states_node(curr, curr_idx, cpus);
> >> > + if (curr_idx == CPUIDLE_STATE_MAX || head_idx == curr_idx)
> >> > + break;
> >> > + /*
> >> > + * idle_states array is updated by parse_idle_states_node(),
> >> > + * we can use the initialized states as a queue of nodes
> >> > + * that need to be checked for their idle states siblings.
> >> > + * head_idx works as a pointer into the queue to get the
> >> > + * next node to be parsed.
> >> > + */
> >> > + curr = idle_states[head_idx++].node;
> >> > + } while (curr);
> >>
> >> I still object to index property and this is why. You need to be able
> >> to determine state order by actual h/w properties. That is what you
> >> are doing in your head when you define the indexes.
> >>
> >> You really want a linked list here that you can sort as you go and not
> >> care what order you parse DT nodes. Not to mention you don't know how
> >> many states you will have.
> >
> > This code does not care about the order of nodes, the index is just there
> > to keep track of nodes that have still to be parsed. Sorting is done later,
> > using the index property (totally unrelated to the {head/curr}_idx) which I
> > understand is frowned upon in DT world (but in this case I think it could be
> > accepted, certainly it would make my life easier).
> >
> > Having said that, I like the idea of implementing it with a linked list and
> > sorting states while parsing them. I will remove that index property and
> > replace it with an actual hw property: power_consumption ? Or should I just
> > use min_residency (the higher the required residency the deeper the idle
> > state) ? Defining the power consumption (or better savings) for a state is
> > an _outright_ can of worms, that's why using an index is easier.
> >
> > Thoughts ?
>
> How about something like rank, power_rank or power_score since it's
> neither an index nor a physical value but a value for sorting states
> relative to each other?
Well, if it is just a renaming issue we can use index just as well.
I hope that by now it is understood that the index property is not
the state index, it is a value representing relative power consumption.
Rob is asking a property describing hw, and honestly unless we define
a power consumption property value (defining what it means will be rather
complicated though) I'd rather remove index altogether and use min_residency
as a comparison value instead.
Lorenzo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
