On Wednesday 21 March 2012 03:21 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > On 03/21/2012 10:36 AM, Shilimkar, Santosh wrote: >> On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 2:57 PM, Daniel Lezcano >> <daniel.lezcano@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> This patchset is a proposition to improve a bit the code. >>> The changes are code cleanup and does not change the behavior of the >>> driver itself. >>> >> Thanks. Will have a look at your series. > > Cool, thanks. > >>> A couple a things call my intention. Why the cpuidle device is set >>> for cpu0 only >> Because the mainline code CPUIDLE is supported along with CPUhotplug. >> This is going to change though with Couple CPUIDLE and corresponding >> OMAP updates. > > Ok, thanks for the information. I will look deeper. What happens to cpu1 > when it is online and has nothing to do ? > >>> and why the WFI is not used ? >>> >> I didn't get this question. Do you mean the generic WFI? > I execute default idle loop. > yes. > >> If yes, then, it's mainly because OMAP need additional >> custom barriers. > > Ah, ok. I am not sure if it is possible but that may be cool if we can > call cpu_do_idle instead with additional barrier. > There is no need. Since code around WFI is customised, it make no sense to call cpu_do_idle(0 ofr only that instruction sake. Regards Santosh -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
