linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v8 5/6] arm64: add support for ACPI Low Power Idle(LPI)

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <577FC50F.7010205@arm.com>
Date:	Fri, 8 Jul 2016 16:21:51 +0100
From:	Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
To:	Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>
Cc:	Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
	ACPI List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	Vikas Sajjan <vikas.cha.sajjan@....com>,
	Sunil <sunil.vl@....com>,
	PrashanthPrakash <pprakash@...eaurora.org>,
	Al Stone <al.stone@...aro.org>,
	Ashwin Chaugule <ashwin.chaugule@...aro.org>,
	Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	ALKML <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 5/6] arm64: add support for ACPI Low Power Idle(LPI)



On 08/07/16 15:47, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 06:10:50PM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>> This patch adds appropriate callbacks to support ACPI Low Power Idle
>> (LPI) on ARM64.
>>
>> Cc: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>
>> Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
>> Cc: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
>> Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
>> Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
>> ---
>>   arch/arm64/kernel/cpuidle.c |  18 +++++++
>>   drivers/firmware/psci.c     | 122 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
>
> I would split this patch in two (ARM64 cpuidle and PSCI)

Agreed, I combined it to get it functional in one go, but until we have
6/6, it won't work. So better to split that changes.

> and for
> the PSCI code (apologies, blame taken, it is entirely my fault) I
> think that the code in v6 was better, I asked you to factor out
> DT/ACPI idle states count and parameter retrieval but the end result
> is much more complicated than what it was in v6, so for PSCI ACPI
> idle states parsing I would revert to v6, apologies.
>

Yes I agree it got bit complicated. I will revert back to v6 for that part.


> With changes above:
>
> Acked-by: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>
>

Thanks

-- 
Regards,
Sudeep