On 10/25/2010 7:36 AM, Thomas Renninger wrote: >> I know that your new API tries to use "0" as exit, but 0 is already >> taken (in all power terminology at least on x86 it is) for this. > cpuidle indeed misuses C0 as "poll idle" state. > That's really bad/misleading, but nothing that can be changed easily. > > I agree shifting C0 (cpuidle)<-> POLL_IDLE event > and "not idle"<-> real C0 (executing instructions) > or however this gets mapped makes things even worse. > > Damn, it could be that easy and straight forward, but I agree that > this kills the approach to trigger state 0 event if C0 is entered > (C0 as defined as operational mode executing instructions). ok so we have "C0 idle" and "C0 no longer idle" I'd propose using the number 0 for the first one (it makes the most logical sense, it's the least deep idle state etc etc) we could use "-1" or "INT_MAX" for the later but as a user of the API I rather like a separate "we're no longer idle" event... but if not, as long as things aren't ambigious I'll find a way to code around it. basically with a separate event, I demultiplex based on event number between entry and exit.... with a special exit value I would just need a double demultiplex, one on "idle" and then a second one on the state number to split between entry/exit. _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
