On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 7:00 PM, a0393909 <santosh.shilimkar@xxxxxx> wrote: > Daniel, > > > On 06/18/2012 02:10 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote: >> >> >> Dear all, >> >> A few weeks ago, Peter De Schrijver proposed a patch [1] to allow per >> cpu latencies. We had a discussion about this patchset because it >> reverse the modifications Deepthi did some months ago [2] and we may >> want to provide a different implementation. >> >> The Linaro Connect [3] event bring us the opportunity to meet people >> involved in the power management and the cpuidle area for different SoC. >> >> With the Tegra3 and big.LITTLE architecture, making per cpu latencies >> for cpuidle is vital. >> >> Also, the SoC vendors would like to have the ability to tune their cpu >> latencies through the device tree. >> >> We agreed in the following steps: >> >> 1. factor out / cleanup the cpuidle code as much as possible >> 2. better sharing of code amongst SoC idle drivers by moving common bits >> to core code >> 3. make the cpuidle_state structure contain only data >> 4. add a API to register latencies per cpu >> >> These four steps impacts all the architecture. I began the factor out >> code / cleanup [4] and that has been accepted upstream and I proposed >> some modifications [5] but I had a very few answers. >> > Another thing which we discussed is bringing the CPU cluster/package > notion in the core idle code. Couple idle did bring that idea to some > extent but in can be further extended and abstracted. Atm, most of > the work is done in back-end cpuidle drivers which can be easily > abstracted if the "cluster idle" notion is supported in the core layer. > Are you considering the "cluster idle" as one of the topic ? Regards Santosh -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
