On 03/20/2015 07:31 PM, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
Hi Daniel,
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 11:43:53AM +0000, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
There is a big number of cpuidle drivers for the ARM architecture.
These drivers have been cleaned up and grouped into the drivers/cpuidle
directory to keep track of the changes more easily and ensure the code
is following the same scheme across the drivers.
That had the benefit of simplifying the code and factor out a lot of common
parts. Beside that, as the drivers belong to the 'drivers' directory, we had
to split the arch specific bits and the generic code in order to keep
everything self contained. The platform driver paradigm was used for this
purpose.
Unfortunately, this approach is now no longer accepted and a different solution
must be provided to reach the same goal: one example is the Qualcomm cpuidle
driver upstreaming attempt.
In the meantime, ARM64 developed a generic cpuidle driver based on DT definition.
The DT definition provides an 'enable-method' to specify one of the cpu
operations (PSCI, ...).
This patchset unify this driver with ARM32, using the same DT definition.
Thanks with this patchset we can use the 'enable-method' to specify a cpu
operations, hence get rid of the platform driver approach and go further in the
cpuidle driver flexibility via the DT.
I had a look and the series seems fine, if you have a branch I can pull from
I will test on arm64 and add the required tags.
Yes, sure.
http://git.linaro.org/git-ro/people/daniel.lezcano/linux.git cpuidle/4.1
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
--
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
