[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5717580B.8060209@arm.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 11:20:59 +0100
From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
To: Vikas Sajjan <sajjan.linux@...il.com>
Cc: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
Al Stone <al.stone@...aro.org>,
Prashanth Prakash <pprakash@...eaurora.org>,
Ashwin Chaugule <ashwin.chaugule@...aro.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Vikas C Sajjan <vikas.cha.sajjan@....com>,
Sunil V L <sunil.vl@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/5] arm64: add support for ACPI Low Power Idle(LPI)
On 20/04/16 10:59, Vikas Sajjan wrote:
> Hi Sudeep,
>
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 6:00 PM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com> wrote:
>> This patch adds appropriate callbacks to support ACPI Low Power Idle
>> (LPI) on ARM64.
>>
>> It also selects ARCH_SUPPORTS_ACPI_PROCESSOR_LPI if ACPI is enabled
>> on ARM64.
>>
[...]
>> @@ -211,6 +214,37 @@ void __init acpi_boot_table_init(void)
>> }
>> }
>>
>> +int acpi_processor_ffh_lpi_probe(unsigned int cpu)
>> +{
>> + return arm_cpuidle_init(cpu);
>> +}
>> +
>
> This is generating warning as below:
>
> WARNING: vmlinux.o(.text+0x11024): Section mismatch in reference from
> the function acpi_processor_ffh_lpi_probe() to the function
> .init.text:arm_cpuidle_init()
> The function acpi_processor_ffh_lpi_probe() references
> the function __init arm_cpuidle_init().
> This is often because acpi_processor_ffh_lpi_probe lacks a __init
> annotation or the annotation of arm_cpuidle_init is wrong.
>
I am aware of this and needs to be fixed. I posted ARM64/PSCI related
patches for completeness.
We can't have __init annotation for ..ffh_lpi_probe as it can be called
from hotplug paths in ACPI. Only solution I see is to remove __init tag
for arm_cpuidle_init. I raised similar concern on the other thread
yesterday[1]
Thanks for looking at these patches, much appreciated.
>
>> +struct acpi_processor_lpi *lpi;
>> +int acpi_processor_ffh_lpi_enter(struct acpi_processor_lpi *lpi, int idx)
>
> Wondering how are you handling with Resource Dependencies for Idle.
> I mean _RDI needs to be taken care, since the dependency between the
> power resources and the LPI state is described in _RDI.
>
Correct, right now I haven't considered RDI yet as I don't have proper
platform to test. IMO it can be added later as RDI is optional and not
used on all platforms.
--
Regards,
Sudeep
[1] http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1604.2/02181.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists