> > Even though we have plan to use coupled cpuidle, I still prefer to go > > with the LP2 driver first. Then adding one more patch to support coupled > > cpuidle based on LP2 driver. This is good for history. And if there is > > any issue, it's more easy to roll back to the stable one. > > I don't think that implementing it one way and then changing to a > different way will benefit history at all. It'll make the history more > complicated. What exactly is the problem with just using coupled cpuidle > from the start? If we did merge this implementation now, then switch to > coupled cpuidle later, when do you think the switch would happen? > Before we consider doing this, I think we should have some idea on how frequently we run into the situation where CPU0 is idle but a secondary core is not. Depending on that we can then decide how useful coupled cpuidle would be for us. Cheers, Peter. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tegra" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
