[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <571F8E7D.4000706@codeaurora.org>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2016 09:51:25 -0600
From: "Prakash, Prashanth" <pprakash@...eaurora.org>
To: 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
Cc: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
Al Stone <al.stone@...aro.org>,
Ashwin Chaugule <ashwin.chaugule@...aro.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/5] arm64: add support for ACPI Low Power Idle(LPI)
Hi Sudeep,
On 4/19/2016 6:30 AM, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> +struct acpi_processor_lpi *lpi;
> +int acpi_processor_ffh_lpi_enter(struct acpi_processor_lpi *lpi, int idx)
> +{
> + int ret;
> +
> + if (!idx) {
> + cpu_do_idle();
> + return idx;
> + }
> +
> + /* TODO cpu_pm_{enter,exit} can be done in generic code ? */
> + ret = cpu_pm_enter();
Can we avoid calling cpu_pm_enter and cpu_pm_exit for retention states as it is not necessary?
May be we can check LPI architecture specific context loss flags prior to calling these.
> + if (!ret) {
> + /*
> + * Pass idle state index to cpu_suspend which in turn will
> + * call the CPU ops suspend protocol with idle index as a
> + * parameter.
> + */
> + ret = arm_cpuidle_suspend(idx);
> +
> + cpu_pm_exit();
same here
> + }
> +
> + return ret ? -1 : idx;
> +}
> +
By the way, thanks for posting these patches!
-Prashanth
Powered by blists - more mailing lists