On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 11:12:53PM +0100, Konrad Dybcio wrote: > Comparing the data available in the downstream sources with what's there > upstream, it was easy to spot some differences. This series aligns what > we have upstream with what is there on the vendor kernel. > > The big asterisk there is that the downstream sources for SC8280XP can't > always be trusted. A simple test shows that the lower idle states that > were previously missing are implemented in the firmware (Linux reports no > errors and enters them). > > HOWEVER > > The only cluster idle state that's been present until now (the deepest > one) is now barely used if at all, as the scheduler seems to deem it > inefficient or so. > > Hence, a request for testing and comments, especially from those who > use the X13s daily or have reliable setup to measure the power usage. > > Signed-off-by: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@xxxxxxxxxx> What did we conclude on this one? Does the extra state make sense? The last patch looks useful... Regards, Bjorn > --- > Changes in v2: > - Rename the idle states > - Drop RFC, confirmed with Qualcomm > - Rebase > - Link to v1: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230619-topic-sc8280xp-idle-v1-0-35a8b98451d0@xxxxxxxxxx > > --- > Konrad Dybcio (3): > arm64: dts: qcom: sc8280xp: Add lower cluster idle states > arm64: dts: qcom: sc8280xp: Add missing CPU idle states > arm64: dts: qcom: sc8280xp: Fix up idle state periods > > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc8280xp.dtsi | 72 +++++++++++++++++++++++++--------- > 1 file changed, 54 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-) > --- > base-commit: 20d857259d7d10cd0d5e8b60608455986167cfad > change-id: 20230619-topic-sc8280xp-idle-00fc007234c8 > > Best regards, > -- > Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@xxxxxxxxxx> >
