On Thu, 2013-08-22 at 11:20 +0530, Deepthi Dharwar wrote: > On 08/22/2013 01:38 AM, Scott Wood wrote: > > On Wed, 2013-08-21 at 10:23 +0530, Deepthi Dharwar wrote: > >> On 08/19/2013 11:47 PM, Scott Wood wrote: > >>> What actual functionality is common to all powerpc but not common to > >>> other arches? > > > > The functionality here is idle states on powerpc like the snooze loop > that is common. > Also, the basic registration of the driver, hotplug notifier etc for > powerpc. The snooze loop uses things like SPRN_PURR, get_lppaca(), and CTRL which aren't common to all PPC (they might be common to all book3s64). I also don't see any hook for the low power mode entry -- is "snooze" just a busy loop plus the de-emphasis stuff like HMT and CTRL[RUN]? I'm not familiar with the term "snooze" in this context. I don't think we'd use anything like that on our chips; we'd always at least "wait" or "doze" depending on the chip. It's not clear what is powerpc-specific about the notifier -- perhaps it should go in drivers/cpuidle/. > > The way forward is to give this file a more appropriate name based on > > the hardware that it actually targets -- and to refactor it so that the > > answer to that question is not complicated. > > Sure, thanks. > Our idea was to have POWER archs idle states merged at the first go. > Only that is what is enabled in the current version (V4 posted out) > ( Code is enabled for PSERIES and POWERNV only) > If needed, other POWERPC archs might benefit by extending the same > driver, that is why it is named cpuidle-powerpc.c > > But if having cpuidle backend-driver separately for other powerpc arcs > makes sense such that each one have their own state information etc > then it makes sense to name the files as cpuidle-power.c, > cpuilde-ppc32.c and so on. Thanks. -Scott
