On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 10:34:06PM +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
[...]
> > +/*
> > + * arm_enter_idle_state - Programs CPU to enter the specified state
> > + *
> > + * dev: cpuidle device
> > + * drv: cpuidle driver
> > + * idx: state index
> > + *
> > + * Called from the CPUidle framework to program the device to the
> > + * specified target state selected by the governor.
> > + */
> > +static int arm_enter_idle_state(struct cpuidle_device *dev,
> > + struct cpuidle_driver *drv, int idx)
> > +{
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + if (!idx) {
> > + cpu_do_idle();
> > + return idx;
> > + }
> > +
> > + cpu_pm_enter();
> > + /*
> > + * Pass idle state index to cpu_suspend which in turn will call
> > + * the CPU ops suspend protocol with idle index as a parameter.
> > + *
> > + * Some states would not require context to be saved and flushed
> > + * to DRAM, so calling cpu_suspend would not be stricly necessary.
> > + * When power domains specifications for ARM CPUs are finalized then
> > + * this code can be optimized to prevent saving registers if not
> > + * needed.
> > + */
> > + ret = cpu_suspend(idx);
> > +
> > + cpu_pm_exit();
> > +
> > + return ret ? -1 : idx;
>
> Is it sure cpu_suspend will return always 0 on success ?
Yes. Now, we have to define "success". On ARM32/64 success means
returning through cpu_resume, which can also happen if a CPU is soft
rebooted following a power down failure. It depends on how the
cpu_suspend back-end behaves on power down failure, if it just returns
or it soft-reboots the CPU. It is an implementation detail, do not think
it is a major problem at the moment.
> > +}
> > +
> > +struct cpuidle_driver arm64_idle_driver = {
> > + .name = "arm64_idle",
> > + .owner = THIS_MODULE,
> > +};
> > +
> > +static struct device_node *state_nodes[CPUIDLE_STATE_MAX] __initdata;
> > +
> > +/*
> > + * arm64_idle_init
> > + *
> > + * Registers the arm64 specific cpuidle driver with the cpuidle
> > + * framework. It relies on core code to parse the idle states
> > + * and initialize them using driver data structures accordingly.
> > + */
> > +static int __init arm64_idle_init(void)
> > +{
> > + int i, ret;
> > + const char *entry_method;
> > + struct device_node *idle_states_node;
> > + const struct cpu_suspend_ops *suspend_init;
> > + struct cpuidle_driver *drv = &arm64_idle_driver;
> > +
> > + idle_states_node = of_find_node_by_path("/cpus/idle-states");
> > + if (!idle_states_node)
> > + return -ENOENT;
> > +
> > + if (of_property_read_string(idle_states_node, "entry-method",
> > + &entry_method)) {
> > + pr_warn(" * %s missing entry-method property\n",
> > + idle_states_node->full_name);
> > + of_node_put(idle_states_node);
> > + ret = -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > + goto put_node;
> > + }
> > +
> > + suspend_init = get_suspend_ops(entry_method);
> > + if (!suspend_init) {
> > + pr_warn("Missing suspend initializer\n");
> > + ret = -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > + goto put_node;
> > + }
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * State at index 0 is standby wfi and considered standard
> > + * on all ARM platforms. If in some platforms simple wfi
> > + * can't be used as "state 0", DT bindings must be implemented
> > + * to work around this issue and allow installing a special
> > + * handler for idle state index 0.
> > + */
> > + drv->states[0].exit_latency = 1;
> > + drv->states[0].target_residency = 1;
> > + drv->states[0].flags = CPUIDLE_FLAG_TIME_VALID;
> > + strncpy(drv->states[0].name, "ARM WFI", CPUIDLE_NAME_LEN);
> > + strncpy(drv->states[0].desc, "ARM WFI", CPUIDLE_DESC_LEN);
>
> Please do not copy the state name and desc strings, they will be
> converted to 'const char *'.
Ok, I need to sync this code with those changes though.
> > + drv->cpumask = (struct cpumask *) cpu_possible_mask;
> > + /*
> > + * Start at index 1, request idle state nodes to be filled
> > + */
> > + ret = of_init_idle_driver(drv, state_nodes, 1, true);
> > + if (ret)
> > + goto put_node;
> > +
> > + if (suspend_init->init_fn(drv, state_nodes)) {
> > + ret = -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > + goto put_node;
> > + }
> > +
> > + for (i = 0; i < drv->state_count; i++)
> > + drv->states[i].enter = arm_enter_idle_state;
>
> May be s/arm/arm64/ ?
Well, yes, unless we go for a common arm/arm64 driver (see Rob's email),
with related pros and cons.
Let's make a decision on this asap, I do not think we are that far from
a common solution.
Thanks a lot,
Lorenzo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
