[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190308114943.GA27731@e107981-ln.cambridge.arm.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2019 11:49:43 +0000
From: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>
To: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
Lina Iyer <ilina@...eaurora.org>,
Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/7] drivers: firmware: psci: Simplify state node parsing
On Fri, Mar 08, 2019 at 11:36:49AM +0100, Ulf Hansson wrote:
[...]
> Instead, my suggestion is according to what I propose in patch 4 and
> $subject patch, which means minor adjustments to be able to pass the
> struct cpuidle_driver * to the init functions. This, I need it for
> next steps, but already at this point it improves things as it avoids
> some of the OF parsing, and that's good, isn't it?
I will take the patches Mark ACKed and send them for v5.2 as
early as it gets in v5.1-rc* cycle.
For this one maybe you can post the changes on top and see what's
the best way forward ?
I agree that duplicating idle state parsing code across back-ends
is silly - we just want to keep PSCI and kernel data structure
decoupled.
Post the code on top and we will find a way forward, OK ?
Thanks,
Lorenzo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists