linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] ARM: cpuidle: Support asymmetric idle definition

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 22 Jun 2017 14:25:19 +0200
From:   Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Cc:     linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
        Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
        Leo Yan <leo.yan@...aro.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ARM: cpuidle: Support asymmetric idle definition

On 12/06/2017 20:49, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, June 12, 2017 05:55:10 PM Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> Some hardware have clusters with different idle states. The current code does
>> not support this and fails as it expects all the idle states to be identical.
>>
>> Because of this, the Mediatek mtk8173 had to create the same idle state for a
>> big.Little system and now the Hisilicon 960 is facing the same situation.
>>
>> Solve this by simply assuming the multiple driver will be needed for all the
>> platforms using the ARM generic cpuidle driver which makes sense because of the
>> different topologies we can support with a single kernel for ARM32 or ARM64.
>>
>> Every CPU has its own driver, so every single CPU can specify in the DT the
>> idle states.
>>
>> This simple approach allows to support the future dynamIQ system, current SMP
>> and HMP.
>>
>> Tested on:
>>  - 96boards: Hikey 620
>>  - 96boards: Hikey 960
>>  - 96boards: dragonboard410c
>>  - Mediatek 8173
>>
>> Cc: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
>> Cc: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>
>> Tested-by: Leo Yan <leo.yan@...aro.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
> 
> There seems to have been quite some discussion regarding this one and I'm not
> sure about the resolution of it.
> 
> I'd feel more comfortable with an ACK or Reviewed-by from Sudeep or Lorenzo here.


Hi Rafael,

just a gentle reminder, Sudeep acked the patch.

Thanks.

  -- Daniel


-- 
 <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog