On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 10:31:26AM -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote:
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?
Thats right. Architecturally L2 deeper sleep modes (which include L2
logic off) may reset the core. So L2 deeper sleep modes with cores in
WFI is not a suggested possibility.
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?
I agree, but there is very little benefit to doing architectural WFI vs
platform WFI in most cases. The residencies are too close and almost the
same, doesnt warrant a separate functions for that. There is no thing
wrong, just dint see a lot of benefit, thats all. What do you think?
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
