On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 10:34:06PM +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote: [...] > > +/* > > + * arm_enter_idle_state - Programs CPU to enter the specified state > > + * > > + * dev: cpuidle device > > + * drv: cpuidle driver > > + * idx: state index > > + * > > + * Called from the CPUidle framework to program the device to the > > + * specified target state selected by the governor. > > + */ > > +static int arm_enter_idle_state(struct cpuidle_device *dev, > > + struct cpuidle_driver *drv, int idx) > > +{ > > + int ret; > > + > > + if (!idx) { > > + cpu_do_idle(); > > + return idx; > > + } > > + > > + cpu_pm_enter(); > > + /* > > + * Pass idle state index to cpu_suspend which in turn will call > > + * the CPU ops suspend protocol with idle index as a parameter. > > + * > > + * Some states would not require context to be saved and flushed > > + * to DRAM, so calling cpu_suspend would not be stricly necessary. > > + * When power domains specifications for ARM CPUs are finalized then > > + * this code can be optimized to prevent saving registers if not > > + * needed. > > + */ > > + ret = cpu_suspend(idx); > > + > > + cpu_pm_exit(); > > + > > + return ret ? -1 : idx; > > Is it sure cpu_suspend will return always 0 on success ? Yes. Now, we have to define "success". On ARM32/64 success means returning through cpu_resume, which can also happen if a CPU is soft rebooted following a power down failure. It depends on how the cpu_suspend back-end behaves on power down failure, if it just returns or it soft-reboots the CPU. It is an implementation detail, do not think it is a major problem at the moment. > > +} > > + > > +struct cpuidle_driver arm64_idle_driver = { > > + .name = "arm64_idle", > > + .owner = THIS_MODULE, > > +}; > > + > > +static struct device_node *state_nodes[CPUIDLE_STATE_MAX] __initdata; > > + > > +/* > > + * arm64_idle_init > > + * > > + * Registers the arm64 specific cpuidle driver with the cpuidle > > + * framework. It relies on core code to parse the idle states > > + * and initialize them using driver data structures accordingly. > > + */ > > +static int __init arm64_idle_init(void) > > +{ > > + int i, ret; > > + const char *entry_method; > > + struct device_node *idle_states_node; > > + const struct cpu_suspend_ops *suspend_init; > > + struct cpuidle_driver *drv = &arm64_idle_driver; > > + > > + idle_states_node = of_find_node_by_path("/cpus/idle-states"); > > + if (!idle_states_node) > > + return -ENOENT; > > + > > + if (of_property_read_string(idle_states_node, "entry-method", > > + &entry_method)) { > > + pr_warn(" * %s missing entry-method property\n", > > + idle_states_node->full_name); > > + of_node_put(idle_states_node); > > + ret = -EOPNOTSUPP; > > + goto put_node; > > + } > > + > > + suspend_init = get_suspend_ops(entry_method); > > + if (!suspend_init) { > > + pr_warn("Missing suspend initializer\n"); > > + ret = -EOPNOTSUPP; > > + goto put_node; > > + } > > + > > + /* > > + * State at index 0 is standby wfi and considered standard > > + * on all ARM platforms. If in some platforms simple wfi > > + * can't be used as "state 0", DT bindings must be implemented > > + * to work around this issue and allow installing a special > > + * handler for idle state index 0. > > + */ > > + drv->states[0].exit_latency = 1; > > + drv->states[0].target_residency = 1; > > + drv->states[0].flags = CPUIDLE_FLAG_TIME_VALID; > > + strncpy(drv->states[0].name, "ARM WFI", CPUIDLE_NAME_LEN); > > + strncpy(drv->states[0].desc, "ARM WFI", CPUIDLE_DESC_LEN); > > Please do not copy the state name and desc strings, they will be > converted to 'const char *'. Ok, I need to sync this code with those changes though. > > + drv->cpumask = (struct cpumask *) cpu_possible_mask; > > + /* > > + * Start at index 1, request idle state nodes to be filled > > + */ > > + ret = of_init_idle_driver(drv, state_nodes, 1, true); > > + if (ret) > > + goto put_node; > > + > > + if (suspend_init->init_fn(drv, state_nodes)) { > > + ret = -EOPNOTSUPP; > > + goto put_node; > > + } > > + > > + for (i = 0; i < drv->state_count; i++) > > + drv->states[i].enter = arm_enter_idle_state; > > May be s/arm/arm64/ ? Well, yes, unless we go for a common arm/arm64 driver (see Rob's email), with related pros and cons. Let's make a decision on this asap, I do not think we are that far from a common solution. Thanks a lot, 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