On 20/04/16 10:59, Vikas Sajjan wrote:
Hi Sudeep,
On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 6:00 PM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@xxxxxxx> wrote:
This patch adds appropriate callbacks to support ACPI Low Power Idle
(LPI) on ARM64.
It also selects ARCH_SUPPORTS_ACPI_PROCESSOR_LPI if ACPI is enabled
on ARM64.
[...]
@@ -211,6 +214,37 @@ void __init acpi_boot_table_init(void)
}
}
+int acpi_processor_ffh_lpi_probe(unsigned int cpu)
+{
+ return arm_cpuidle_init(cpu);
+}
+
This is generating warning as below:
WARNING: vmlinux.o(.text+0x11024): Section mismatch in reference from
the function acpi_processor_ffh_lpi_probe() to the function
.init.text:arm_cpuidle_init()
The function acpi_processor_ffh_lpi_probe() references
the function __init arm_cpuidle_init().
This is often because acpi_processor_ffh_lpi_probe lacks a __init
annotation or the annotation of arm_cpuidle_init is wrong.
I am aware of this and needs to be fixed. I posted ARM64/PSCI related
patches for completeness.
We can't have __init annotation for ..ffh_lpi_probe as it can be called
from hotplug paths in ACPI. Only solution I see is to remove __init tag
for arm_cpuidle_init. I raised similar concern on the other thread
yesterday[1]
Thanks for looking at these patches, much appreciated.
+struct acpi_processor_lpi *lpi;
+int acpi_processor_ffh_lpi_enter(struct acpi_processor_lpi *lpi, int idx)
Wondering how are you handling with Resource Dependencies for Idle.
I mean _RDI needs to be taken care, since the dependency between the
power resources and the LPI state is described in _RDI.
Correct, right now I haven't considered RDI yet as I don't have proper
platform to test. IMO it can be added later as RDI is optional and not
used on all platforms.
--
Regards,
Sudeep
[1] http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1604.2/02181.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
