Lina Iyer <lina.iyer@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 03:24:44AM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote: >>On 08/20/2014 12:15 AM, Lina Iyer wrote: [...] >> >> So IIUC, if you specify the index 1, that means the state[0] will be >> the default WFI. But you override the callback below in the loop. >> >> I recommend you use the default arm wfi callback but you implement >> the cpu_do_idle for your platform. > > Yes, it was intended. I dont want to define two WFI states. The > architectural WFI does not buy us enough compared to WFI that SoC can > do. L2 can go into low power modes when the core is in WFI and for that > I would like to have all WFI's enter SoC framework. If the L2 is going into low-power, that means there will be higher latency coming out compared to the architectural WFI, correct? If you have both, and the latency/residency numbers are accurate, the governor is then left to pick the right one. So, what's wrong with having both? Kevin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
