[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y9eWF1wZe0p6Gzmq@linutronix.de>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2023 11:04:07 +0100
From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
Cc: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <lpieralisi@...nel.org>,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Adrien Thierry <athierry@...hat.com>,
Brian Masney <bmasney@...hat.com>,
linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] cpuidle: psci: Do not suspend topology CPUs on
PREEMPT_RT
On 2023-01-25 11:08:04 [+0100], Ulf Hansson wrote:
> > It's the power domain sued for other devices, so we need it. Otherwise
> > other devices will keep waiting for this missing power domain provider.
>
Ach this explains my other question I had.
>
> And we are still able to use those idle states that are solely per
> CPU, which is probably nice to have. No?
If the entry/ exit latency is not known, it can be dangerous.
> Kind regards
> Uffe
Sebastian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists