On Mon, Nov 17 2014 at 10:39 -0700, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 12:40:21AM +0100, Lina Iyer wrote:
Add cpuidle driver interface to allow cpus to go into C-States. Use the
cpuidle DT interface, common across ARM architectures, to provide the
C-State information to the cpuidle framework.
"idle states", this is not ACPI.
Okay.
Supported modes at this time are Standby and Standalone Power Collapse.
Signed-off-by: Lina Iyer <lina.iyer@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
[...]
+static struct qcom_cpu_pm_ops *lpm_ops;
+
+static int qcom_cpu_stby(struct cpuidle_device *dev,
+ struct cpuidle_driver *drv, int index)
+{
+ lpm_ops->standby(NULL);
+
+ return index;
+}
+
+static int qcom_cpu_spc(struct cpuidle_device *dev,
+ struct cpuidle_driver *drv, int index)
+{
+ lpm_ops->spc(NULL);
+
+ return index;
+}
+
I can't have a look at this and avoid thinking that this should look
something like:
static qcom_cpu_idle(...., int index)
{
lpm_ops[index].enter_idle(...);
return index;
}
Before jumping to conclusions, see below.
+static struct cpuidle_driver qcom_cpuidle_driver = {
+ .name = "qcom_cpuidle",
+};
+
+static const struct of_device_id qcom_idle_state_match[] = {
+ { .compatible = "qcom,idle-state-stby", .data = qcom_cpu_stby},
+ { .compatible = "qcom,idle-state-spc", .data = qcom_cpu_spc },
+ { },
+};
+
+static int qcom_cpuidle_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
+{
+ struct cpuidle_driver *drv = &qcom_cpuidle_driver;
+ int ret;
+
+ lpm_ops = pdev->dev.platform_data;
+
+ /* Probe for other states, including standby */
+ ret = dt_init_idle_driver(drv, qcom_idle_state_match, 0);
This driver will be DT only. If an idle state is parsed correctly,
it is initialized, otherwise it is skipped. Now, if we added glue
code in arch arm (as arm64 does) that allows us to link an idle state
index with the functions above (a DT idle state contains all information
required to initialize its enter function, more so now that we are adding
power domains to the picture), what would be the issue in defining a
common API that just passes the index to the arch back-end ? No pointers
to pass, no platform drivers required and still no arch/soc code in
drivers/cpuidle.
I am obviously talking about DT CPUidle drivers only.
If the idle state is parsed correctly and the backend initializer (let's
call it arm_cpu_init_idle(cpu)) is successful (which means that DT idle
states contain valid information and the enter functions could be
initialized from DT properly) I do not see what's the problem, give it
some thought.
Anyway, I will put together an RFC to start the discussion when patch is
merged and patch the relevant code as an example, you can go ahead with
current code, I am reviewing it.
OK. I understand your idea. Like it.
Lorenzo
--
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
