[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1906120913090.2214@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2019 09:14:16 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Leonard Crestez <leonard.crestez@....com>
cc: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>, Abel Vesa <abel.vesa@....com>,
Lucas Stach <l.stach@...gutronix.de>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Abel Vesa <abelvesa@...il.com>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>,
Jacky Bai <ping.bai@....com>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
dl-linux-imx <linux-imx@....com>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Carlo Caione <ccaione@...libre.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/2] Add workaround for core wake-up on IPI for i.MX8MQ
On Mon, 10 Jun 2019, Leonard Crestez wrote:
> On 6/10/2019 5:08 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > Nobody is talking about performance here. It is strictly about
> > correctness, and what I read about this system is that it cannot
> > reliably use cpuidle.
> My argument was that it's fine if PPIs and LPIs are broken as long as
> they're not used:
>
> * PPIs are only used for local timer which is not used for wakeup.
Huch? The timer has to bring the CPU out of idle as any other interrupt.
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists