On Wed, Nov 26 2014 at 08:20 -0700, Lina Iyer wrote:
On Wed, Nov 26 2014 at 04:19 -0700, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
On 11/19/2014 06:43 PM, Lina Iyer wrote:
On Fri, Nov 14 2014 at 08:56 -0700, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
On 10/25/2014 01:40 AM, Lina Iyer wrote:
+
+ if ((cpu > -1) && !cpuidle_drv_init) {
+ platform_device_register(&qcom_cpuidle_device);
+ cpuidle_drv_init = true;
+ }
'cpu' is always > -1.
OK. I was hoping to use -1 for not a cpu (i.e, L2) SPM. For now, I will
change.
If the 'spm_get_drv' succeed, cpu is no longer equal to -EINVAL.
Otherwise we do not reach this point because we return right after
spm_get_drv with an error.
Adding the platform_device_register depending in a static variable is
not very nice. Why not add it explicitely in a separate init routine
we know it will be called one time (eg. at the same place than cpufreq
is) ?
We want to register the cpuidle device only if any of the SPM devices
have been probed.
Ideally, Stephen and I would like to register cpuidle device separately
for each CPU SPM, when it is probed, so we would invoke cpuidle driver
and thereby the low power modes only for those cpus. However, the
complexity to do that, AFAICS, is very complex. I would need to change
quite a bit of the framework and in the cpuidle driver, I may have to
stray from the recommended format.
Here I set up cpuidle device, when I know atleast 1 cpu is ready to
allow low power modes.
Yes, instead of using the generic cpuidle_register function, you can
use the low level functions for that.
One call to cpuidle_register_driver in a single place and then
cpuidle_register_device for each spm probe.
Wouldn't make sense ?
Yes, but there are some assumptions if we dont use
MULTIPLE_CPUIDLE_DRIVERS like this -
static void __cpuidle_driver_init(struct cpuidle_driver *drv)
{
int i;
drv->refcnt = 0; // Overwrites any cpuidle_driver_get()
The clean way was to use MULTIPLE_CPUIDLE_DRIVERS, which seems like an
incorrect use for this SoC.
Also, I probe and parse the cpuidle dt states for every SPM, which seems
redundant and any optimization looks as hackish as this check.
Thanks,
Lina
--
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
