Re: [RFC/PATCH 9/9] OMAP2+: cpuidle only influences the MPU state

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi Santosh,

On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 3:23 PM, Santosh Shilimkar
<santosh.shilimkar@xxxxxx> wrote:
> On 6/24/2011 7:38 AM, jean.pihet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>
>> From: Jean Pihet<j-pihet@xxxxxx>
>>
>> Since cpuidle is a CPU centric framework it decides the MPU
>> next power state based on the MPU exit_latency and target_residency
>> figures.
>>
>> The rest of the power domains get their next power state programmed
>> from the PM_QOS_DEV_WAKEUP_LATENCY class of the PM QoS framework,
>> via the device wake-up latency constraints.
>>
>> Note: the exit_latency and target_residency figures of the MPU
>> include the MPU itself and the peripherals needed for the MPU to
>> execute instructions (e.g. main memory, caches, IRQ controller,
>> MMU etc). Some of those peripherals can belong to other power domains
>> than the MPU subsystem and so the corresponding latencies must be
>> included in this figure.
>>
> With above comment, I was expecting that the latency numbers
> in the table will change.
Not necessarily. I just wanted to have it clearly stated in the commit
description.
In any case I will review the figures and update them if needed.
...

>>  static struct cpuidle_params cpuidle_params_table[] = {
>> -       /* C1 */
>> +       /* C1 . MPU WFI + Core active */
>>        {2 + 2, 5, 1},
>> -       /* C2 */
>> +       /* C2 . MPU WFI + Core inactive */
>>        {10 + 10, 30, 1},
>> -       /* C3 */
>> +       /* C3 . MPU CSWR + Core inactive */
>>        {50 + 50, 300, 1},
>> -       /* C4 */
>> +       /* C4 . MPU OFF + Core inactive */
>>        {1500 + 1800, 4000, 1},
>> -       /* C5 */
>> +       /* C5 . MPU RET + Core RET */
>>        {2500 + 7500, 12000, 1},
>> -       /* C6 */
>> +       /* C6 . MPU OFF + Core RET */
>>        {3000 + 8500, 15000, 1},
>> -       /* C7 */
>> +       /* C7 . MPU OFF + Core OFF */
>>        {10000 + 30000, 300000, 1},
>
> Latency numbers still seems to include CORE PD latency as
> well. Am I missing something Jean?
The figures are looking OK.

Thanks,
Jean

>
> Regards
> Santosh
>
_______________________________________________
linux-pm mailing list
linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm



[Index of Archives]     [Linux ACPI]     [Netdev]     [Ethernet Bridging]     [Linux Wireless]     [CPU Freq]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Security]     [Linux for Hams]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux Admin]     [Samba]

  Powered by Linux