linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 2/5] ACPI / processor_idle: Add support for Low Power Idle(LPI) states

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:	Tue, 14 Jun 2016 17:47:40 +0100
From:	Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
To:	"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
	Vikas Sajjan <vikas.cha.sajjan@....com>,
	Sunil <sunil.vl@....com>,
	Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
	Prashanth Prakash <pprakash@...eaurora.org>,
	Al Stone <al.stone@...aro.org>,
	Ashwin Chaugule <ashwin.chaugule@...aro.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 2/5] ACPI / processor_idle: Add support for Low Power
 Idle(LPI) states



On 14/06/16 15:48, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> ACPI 6.0 introduced an optional object _LPI that provides an alternate
> method to describe Low Power Idle states. It defines the local power
> states for each node in a hierarchical processor topology. The OSPM can
> use _LPI object to select a local power state for each level of processor
> hierarchy in the system. They used to produce a composite power state
> request that is presented to the platform by the OSPM.
>
> Since multiple processors affect the idle state for any non-leaf hierarchy
> node, coordination of idle state requests between the processors is
> required. ACPI supports two different coordination schemes: Platform
> coordinated and  OS initiated.
>
> This patch adds initial support for Platform coordination scheme of LPI.
>

I seem to have sent a stale version of this patch, will send an updated
version of this patch alone. Please ignore this one.

-- 
Regards,
Sudeep