On 03/21/2012 02:43 PM, Jean Pihet wrote:
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Santosh Shilimkar
<santosh.shilim...@ti.com> wrote:
Daniel,
On Wednesday 21 March 2012 02:57 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
This patchset is a proposition to improve a bit the code.
The changes are code cleanup and does not change the behavior of the
driver itself.
A couple a things call my intention. Why the cpuidle device is set for cpu0 only
and why the WFI is not used ?
Daniel Lezcano (7):
ARM: OMAP4: cpuidle - Remove unused valid field
ARM: OMAP4: cpuidle - Declare the states with the driver declaration
ARM: OMAP4: cpuidle - Remove the cpuidle_params_table table
ARM: OMAP4: cpuidle - fix static omap4_idle_data declaration
ARM: OMAP4: cpuidle - Initialize omap4_idle_data at compile time
ARM: OMAP4: cpuidle - use the omap4_idle_data variable directly
ARM: OMAP4: cpuidle - remove omap4_idle_data initialization at boot
time
The series looks fine to me in general. This clean-up is applicable
for OMAP3 cpuidle code as well.
Great!
However OMAP3 has a few specific things that cannot be removed as easily:
- the 'valid' flag is used because only certain combinations of power
domains states are possible,
When I look the board-rx51 code I see:
static struct cpuidle_params rx51_cpuidle_params[] = {
/* C1 */
{110 + 162, 5 , 1},
/* C2 */
{106 + 180, 309, 1},
/* C3 */
{107 + 410, 46057, 0},
/* C4 */
{121 + 3374, 46057, 0},
/* C5 */
{855 + 1146, 46057, 1},
/* C6 */
{7580 + 4134, 484329, 0},
/* C7 */
{7505 + 15274, 484329, 1},
};
If C3, C4, C6 are not valid, so AFAICS never used in the cpuidle code
why the values are 'exit_latency' and 'target_residency' specified ? I
mean why don't we have { 0, 0, 0 } ? Is it just for information ?
I understand the purpose of this code but it looks a bit tricky and hard
to factor out. Is it acceptable to create a new cpuidle driver for rx51
then we factor out the code between omap3, omap4 and rx51 when all the
code consistent ?
- the latency settings can be overriden by the board code, so the
cpuidle_params struct is needed.
I want Jean to look at this series because some of his earlier
clean up has introduced those custom functions which
are getting removed in this series.
Regards
santosh
Thanks,
Jean
--
<http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog
_______________________________________________
linaro-dev mailing list
linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org
http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
