Hi Kevin, On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 8:43 PM, Kevin Hilman <khilman@xxxxxx> wrote: > Jean Pihet <jean.pihet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 10:29 PM, Kevin Hilman <khilman@xxxxxx> wrote: >>> jean.pihet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes: >>> >>>> From: Jean Pihet <j-pihet@xxxxxx> >>>> >>>> The MPU latency figures for cpuidle include the MPU itself and also >>>> the peripherals needed for the MPU to execute instructions (e.g. >>>> main memory, caches, IRQ controller, MMU etc). On OMAP3 those >>>> peripherals belong to the MPU and CORE power domains and so the >>>> cpuidle C-states are a combination of MPU and CORE states. >>>> >>>> This patch implements the relation between the cpuidle and per- >>>> device PM QoS frameworks in the OMAP3 specific idle callbacks. >>>> >>>> The chosen C-state shall satisfy the following conditions: >>>> . the 'valid' field is enabled, >>>> . it satisfies the enable_off_mode flag, >>> >>> Not directly related to this patch, but is there any reason to keep the >>> 'enable_off_mode' flag after this series? >> enable_off_mode could be removed completely after this series unless >> there is a need to prevent OFF mode for debug reasons. > > Great. > > For debug reasons, we can just as easily set constraints to prevent off > mode, so I would like to see it disappear. I have a WIP patch that removes the enable_off_mode flag and will post it as soon as this series is in the upstream pipe. Thanks, Jean > > Kevin > _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
