On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 01:43:44PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote: [...] > > > Anyway, as a suggestion to address your concern, how about this: > > > > > > 1. Move some things out to a PSCI cpuidle driver. We need to decide > > > more exactly on what to move and find the right level for the > > > interfaces. > > > > I will do it and post patches asap. > > Okay, so I will wait for you to converting the cpuidle-arm driver into > a cpuidle-psci driver (and all the changes that comes with it) and > then base my re-base my series on top. > > Then, would you mind sharing (even in an early phase) a > branch/git-tree so I can start re-basing my series on top? Sure, I should be able to post at -rc1 and will publish a branch here [1]. > > > 2. Don't attach the CPU to the PM domain topology in case the PSCI PC > > > mode is used. I think this makes it easier, at least as a first step, > > > to understand when runtime PM needs to be used/enabled. > > > > In the PSCI CPUidle driver we can have two distinct struct > > cpuidle_state->enter functions for PC and OSI, no overhead > > for PC, runtime PM for OSI, decoupling done. > > Good idea! > > > > > We can choose one or the other depending on whether: > > > > OSI iff: > > - OSI is available > > - hierarchical idle states are present in DT > > > > otherwise PC. > > > > That's what this patch does but we will do it in a unified file. > > Sure, it makes sense. > > > > > > 3. Would it help if I volunteer to help you guys as a maintainer for > > > PSCI. At least for the part of the new code that becomes introduced? > > > > We will do as described above if that makes sense. > > Yep, I am okay with your suggestions, assuming I have understood them correctly. > > BTW, have you considered to host a git tree for PSCI so we can have > changes pre-integrated and tested in Stephen Rothwell's linux-next > tree? I will ask Stephen to pull when needed a branch in the tree below[1] [1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/lpieralisi/linux.git/
