On Mon, Mar 16 2015 at 15:51 -0600, Stephen Boyd wrote:
On 03/09/15 08:16, Lina Iyer wrote:+ +static int qcom_idle_enter(int cpu, unsigned long index) +{ + if (!per_cpu(qcom_idle_ops, cpu)[index]) + return -EOPNOTSUPP;Is this case still happening?
I think, I can remove it safely now.
+ + return per_cpu(qcom_idle_ops, cpu)[index](cpu); +} + +const struct of_device_id qcom_idle_state_match[] __initconst = {static?
Ok
+ { .compatible = "qcom,idle-state-stby", .data = qcom_cpu_standby }, + { .compatible = "qcom,idle-state-spc", .data = qcom_cpu_spc }, + { }, +}; + +static int __init qcom_cpuidle_init(struct device_node *cpu_node, int cpu) +{ + const struct of_device_id *match_id; + struct device_node *state_node; + int i; + int state_count = 0; + idle_fn idle_fns[CPUIDLE_STATE_MAX]; + idle_fn *fns; + cpumask_t mask; + bool use_scm_power_down = false; + + for (i = 0; ; i++) { + state_node = of_parse_phandle(cpu_node, "cpu-idle-states", i); + if (!state_node) + break; + + if (!of_device_is_available(state_node)) + continue; + + if (i == CPUIDLE_STATE_MAX) { + pr_warn("%s: cpuidle states reached max possible\n", + __func__); + break; + } + + match_id = of_match_node(qcom_idle_state_match, state_node); + if (!match_id) + return -ENODEV; + + idle_fns[state_count] = match_id->data; + + /* Check if any of the states allow power down */ + if (match_id->data == qcom_cpu_spc) + use_scm_power_down = true; + + state_count++; + } + + if (!state_count) { + pr_warn("No idle ops founds for cpu %d\n", cpu);Maybe pr_debug? It's not the end of the world that we don't have cpuidle.
Sure.
+ return -ENODEV; + } + + fns = kcalloc(state_count, sizeof(*fns), GFP_KERNEL); + if (!fns) + return -ENOMEM; + + for (i = 0; i < state_count; i++) + fns[i] = idle_fns[i]; + + if (use_scm_power_down) { + /* We have atlease one power down mode */s/atlease/at least/
Thanks!
+ cpumask_clear(&mask); + cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, &mask); + qcom_scm_set_warm_boot_addr(cpu_resume, &mask); + } + + per_cpu(qcom_idle_ops, cpu) = fns; + + /* + * Condition: cpuidle_driver_register() needs to happen before + * cpuidle_register_device(). + * Check if the SPM probe has happened - + * - If SPM probed successfully before arm_idle_init(), then defer + * the registration of cpuidle_device back to arm_idle_init() + * - If the SPM probe happens in the future, then let the SPM probe + * register the cpuidle device, return -ENOSYS. + */ + return per_cpu(cpu_spm_drv, cpu) ? 0 : -ENOSYS; +} + +struct cpuidle_ops qcom_kpss_v1_cpuidle_ops __initdata = { + .name = "qcom,kpss-acc-v1", + .suspend = qcom_idle_enter, + .init = qcom_cpuidle_init, +}; + +struct cpuidle_ops qcom_kpss_v2_cpuidle_ops __initdata = { + .name = "qcom,kpss-acc-v2", + .suspend = qcom_idle_enter, + .init = qcom_cpuidle_init, +}; +This just looks weird because of the macro magic in Daniel's series. Any reason we can't use the linker instead of doing preprocessor magic so that it looks like these structures are actually used?
Hmm.. Will wait on Daniel's response to your other mail.
-- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
-- 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
