Hi, Daniel,
On 24/06/16 22:04, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
[...]
+
+ psci_states = kcalloc(count, sizeof(*psci_states), GFP_KERNEL);
+ if (!psci_states)
+ return -ENOMEM;
+
+ for (i = 0; i < count; i++) {
+ u32 state;
+
+ lpi = &pr->power.lpi_states[i + 1];
+ state = lpi->address & 0xFFFFFFFF;
Why is needed to mask 'address' ?
This is as per Section 3.1.1 FFH Usage in LPI state entry methods in [1]
[...]
int psci_cpu_init_idle(unsigned int cpu)
{
struct device_node *cpu_node;
int ret;
+ if (!acpi_disabled)
+ return psci_acpi_cpu_init_idle(cpu);
Is it possible the case where there is information in both the DT and in
ACPI ? So ACPI is enabled without idle information which is in the DT ?
No, as Rafael mentioned aready.
Either you do this, or we have to add it somehow somewhere in
drivers/cpuidle to avoid duplicating it.
@Daniel: do you have an opinion on this please ?
Yes, this function should be added to avoid duplication.
So, I assume you are happy with the way it's handled in this patch ?
(I will rename the file as suggested by Lorenzo)
--
Regards,
Sudeep
[1]
http://infocenter.arm.com/help/topic/com.arm.doc.den0048a/DEN0048A_ARM_FFH_Specification.pdf
--
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
