Re: [PATCH 13/13] arm64: dts: Convert to the hierarchical CPU topology layout for MSM8916

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



- Andy

On Thu, 24 Oct 2019 at 18:41, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 01:39:37PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> > To enable the OS to better support PSCI OS initiated CPU suspend mode,
> > let's convert from the flattened layout to the hierarchical layout.
> >
> > In the hierarchical layout, let's create a power domain provider per CPU
> > and describe the idle states for each CPU inside the power domain provider
> > node. To group the CPUs into a cluster, let's add another power domain
> > provider and make it act as the master domain. Note that, the CPU's idle
> > states remains compatible with "arm,idle-state", while the cluster's idle
> > state becomes compatible with "domain-idle-state".
> >
> > Cc: Andy Gross <andy.gross@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Co-developed-by: Lina Iyer <lina.iyer@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Lina Iyer <lina.iyer@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8916.dtsi | 57 +++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> >  1 file changed, 53 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8916.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8916.dtsi
> > index 5ea9fb8f2f87..1ece0c763592 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8916.dtsi
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8916.dtsi
> > @@ -102,10 +102,11 @@
> >                       reg = <0x0>;
> >                       next-level-cache = <&L2_0>;
> >                       enable-method = "psci";
> > -                     cpu-idle-states = <&CPU_SLEEP_0>;
> >                       clocks = <&apcs>;
> >                       operating-points-v2 = <&cpu_opp_table>;
> >                       #cooling-cells = <2>;
> > +                     power-domains = <&CPU_PD0>;
> > +                     power-domain-names = "psci";
>
> As mentioned in the patch: Do we really need to make power-domain-names
> compulsory ?

Yes, I think that is a good idea. However, let's discuss in the other
thread instead.

Again, thanks a lot for reviewing!

Kind regards
Uffe



[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [Linux for Sparc]     [IETF Annouce]     [Security]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux MIPS]     [ECOS]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]

  Powered by Linux