On 03/21/2012 10:56 AM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
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.
So is it not possible to add a cpuidle device for cpu1 and define only
one state for the 'wfi-for-omap' ?
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.
For my personal information, why the WFI is customised for omap4 ?
Thanks
-- Daniel
--
<http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog
--
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
