[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190718133630.GB27222@e121166-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 14:36:30 +0100
From: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>
To: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
Cc: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
"Raju P . L . S . S . S . N" <rplsssn@...eaurora.org>,
Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria@...aro.org>,
Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
Niklas Cassel <niklas.cassel@...aro.org>,
Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
Kevin Hilman <khilman@...nel.org>,
Lina Iyer <ilina@...eaurora.org>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
Souvik Chakravarty <souvik.chakravarty@....com>,
Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/18] drivers: firmware: psci: Add hierarchical domain
idle states converter
On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 01:43:44PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote:
[...]
> > > Anyway, as a suggestion to address your concern, how about this:
> > >
> > > 1. Move some things out to a PSCI cpuidle driver. We need to decide
> > > more exactly on what to move and find the right level for the
> > > interfaces.
> >
> > I will do it and post patches asap.
>
> Okay, so I will wait for you to converting the cpuidle-arm driver into
> a cpuidle-psci driver (and all the changes that comes with it) and
> then base my re-base my series on top.
>
> Then, would you mind sharing (even in an early phase) a
> branch/git-tree so I can start re-basing my series on top?
Sure, I should be able to post at -rc1 and will publish a branch
here [1].
> > > 2. Don't attach the CPU to the PM domain topology in case the PSCI PC
> > > mode is used. I think this makes it easier, at least as a first step,
> > > to understand when runtime PM needs to be used/enabled.
> >
> > In the PSCI CPUidle driver we can have two distinct struct
> > cpuidle_state->enter functions for PC and OSI, no overhead
> > for PC, runtime PM for OSI, decoupling done.
>
> Good idea!
>
> >
> > We can choose one or the other depending on whether:
> >
> > OSI iff:
> > - OSI is available
> > - hierarchical idle states are present in DT
> >
> > otherwise PC.
> >
> > That's what this patch does but we will do it in a unified file.
>
> Sure, it makes sense.
>
> >
> > > 3. Would it help if I volunteer to help you guys as a maintainer for
> > > PSCI. At least for the part of the new code that becomes introduced?
> >
> > We will do as described above if that makes sense.
>
> Yep, I am okay with your suggestions, assuming I have understood them correctly.
>
> BTW, have you considered to host a git tree for PSCI so we can have
> changes pre-integrated and tested in Stephen Rothwell's linux-next
> tree?
I will ask Stephen to pull when needed a branch in the tree below[1]
[1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/lpieralisi/linux.git/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists