On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 2:21 PM, Tero Kristo <t-kristo@xxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, 2012-07-20 at 13:38 +0530, Rajendra Nayak wrote: > > On Friday 20 July 2012 12:55 PM, Shilimkar, Santosh wrote: > > > On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 11:34 AM, Rajendra Nayak<rnayak@xxxxxx> > > > wrote: > > >> pwrdm_pre_transition()/pwrdm_post_transition() have always been high > > >> latency > > >> operations done within cpuidle to do Powerdomain level book-keeping > > >> to know > > >> what state transitions for different Powerdomains have been > > >> triggered. > > >> This is also useful to do a restore-on-demand in some cases when we > > >> know > > >> the context for the given Powerdomain was lost etc. > > >> > > >> Now that we have definitive entry/exit points (thanks to the > > >> Powerdomain > > >> level usecounting) for Powerdomain transitions, these book-keeping > > >> functions > > >> can very well be moved from within CPUidle into > > >> pwrdm_clkdm_enable()/pwrdm_ > > >> clkdm_disable() functions. > > >> > > >> Also rename _pwrdm_pre/post_transition_cb() to > > >> pwrdm_pre/post_transition() > > >> and get rid of the original ones which iterate over all powerdomains. > > >> > > >> Signed-off-by: Rajendra Nayak<rnayak@xxxxxx> > > >> --- > > >> arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap-mpuss-lowpower.c | 4 ++-- > > >> arch/arm/mach-omap2/pm34xx.c | 4 ++-- > > >> arch/arm/mach-omap2/powerdomain.c | 28 > > >> ++++++++-------------------- > > >> arch/arm/mach-omap2/powerdomain.h | 4 ++-- > > >> 4 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-) > > >> > > >> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap-mpuss-lowpower.c > > >> b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap-mpuss-lowpower.c > > >> index 13670aa..ea19439 100644 > > >> --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap-mpuss-lowpower.c > > >> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap-mpuss-lowpower.c > > >> @@ -255,7 +255,7 @@ int omap4_enter_lowpower(unsigned int cpu, > > >> unsigned int power_state) > > >> return -ENXIO; > > >> } > > >> > > >> - pwrdm_pre_transition(); > > >> + pwrdm_cpu_idle(); > > >> > > > Glad to see this is getting optimized. > > > I haven't seen how "pwrdm_cpu_[idle/wakeup]()" is > > > implemented but will those work on SMP system ? > > > I mean OMAP4, any CPU can make this call ? > > > > Thats a good question. I think Tero did this so he can kick in > > voltage transitions at the right time in idle/suspend. > > Given that these deal with incrementing/decrementing the MPU and CORE > > pwrdm usecounts alone, maybe on OMAP4 (SMP systems) this needs to also > > increment/decrement the specific CPU usecounts on the CPUs these calls > > are made. > > Yeah, you should keep the usecounts valid by each cpu separately calling > these functions. My current set only sets these usecounts based on cpu0 > activity, as cpu1 is statically controlled through cpu online / offline. > Once per-cpu cpuidle is in, these should be changed so that each > individual cpu increases the usecounts when they are brought up, > decrease/increase during idle, and decrease when they are brought down. > The usecount should always reflect the number of CPUs active on MPU > domain. > Sounds good to me !! 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
