On 10/05/2019 13:29, Amit Kucheria wrote: > Add device bindings for cpuidle states for cpu devices. > > Cc: Marc Gonzalez <marc.w.gonza...@free.fr> > Signed-off-by: Amit Kucheria <amit.kuche...@linaro.org> > --- > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8998.dtsi | 32 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 32 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8998.dtsi > b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8998.dtsi > index 3fd0769fe648..208281f318e2 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8998.dtsi > +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8998.dtsi > @@ -78,6 +78,7 @@ > compatible = "arm,armv8"; > reg = <0x0 0x0>; > enable-method = "psci"; > + cpu-idle-states = <&LITTLE_CPU_PD>;
For some reason, I was expecting the big cores to come first, but according to /proc/cpuinfo, cores 0-3 are part 0x801, while cores 4-7 are part 0x800. According to https://github.com/pytorch/cpuinfo/blob/master/src/arm/uarch.c 0x801 = Low-power Kryo 260 / 280 "Silver" -> Cortex-A53 0x800 = High-performance Kryo 260 (r10p2) / Kryo 280 (r10p1) "Gold" -> Cortex-A73 > efficiency = <1024>; > next-level-cache = <&L2_0>; > L2_0: l2-cache { > @@ -97,6 +98,7 @@ > compatible = "arm,armv8"; > reg = <0x0 0x1>; > enable-method = "psci"; > + cpu-idle-states = <&LITTLE_CPU_PD>; > efficiency = <1024>; > next-level-cache = <&L2_0>; > L1_I_1: l1-icache { > @@ -112,6 +114,7 @@ > compatible = "arm,armv8"; > reg = <0x0 0x2>; > enable-method = "psci"; > + cpu-idle-states = <&LITTLE_CPU_PD>; > efficiency = <1024>; > next-level-cache = <&L2_0>; > L1_I_2: l1-icache { > @@ -127,6 +130,7 @@ > compatible = "arm,armv8"; > reg = <0x0 0x3>; > enable-method = "psci"; > + cpu-idle-states = <&LITTLE_CPU_PD>; > efficiency = <1024>; > next-level-cache = <&L2_0>; > L1_I_3: l1-icache { > @@ -142,6 +146,7 @@ > compatible = "arm,armv8"; > reg = <0x0 0x100>; > enable-method = "psci"; > + cpu-idle-states = <&BIG_CPU_PD>; > efficiency = <1536>; > next-level-cache = <&L2_1>; > L2_1: l2-cache { > @@ -161,6 +166,7 @@ > compatible = "arm,armv8"; > reg = <0x0 0x101>; > enable-method = "psci"; > + cpu-idle-states = <&BIG_CPU_PD>; > efficiency = <1536>; > next-level-cache = <&L2_1>; > L1_I_101: l1-icache { > @@ -176,6 +182,7 @@ > compatible = "arm,armv8"; > reg = <0x0 0x102>; > enable-method = "psci"; > + cpu-idle-states = <&BIG_CPU_PD>; > efficiency = <1536>; > next-level-cache = <&L2_1>; > L1_I_102: l1-icache { > @@ -191,6 +198,7 @@ > compatible = "arm,armv8"; > reg = <0x0 0x103>; > enable-method = "psci"; > + cpu-idle-states = <&BIG_CPU_PD>; > efficiency = <1536>; > next-level-cache = <&L2_1>; > L1_I_103: l1-icache { > @@ -238,6 +246,30 @@ > }; > }; > }; > + > + idle-states { > + entry-method="psci"; > + > + LITTLE_CPU_PD: little-power-down { > + compatible = "arm,idle-state"; > + idle-state-name = "little-power-down"; > + arm,psci-suspend-param = <0x00000002>; > + entry-latency-us = <43>; > + exit-latency-us = <43>; Little cores have higher latency (+5%) than big cores? > + min-residency-us = <200>; > + local-timer-stop; > + }; > + > + BIG_CPU_PD: big-power-down { > + compatible = "arm,idle-state"; > + idle-state-name = "big-power-down"; > + arm,psci-suspend-param = <0x00000002>; > + entry-latency-us = <41>; > + exit-latency-us = <41>; > + min-residency-us = <200>; > + local-timer-stop; > + }; > + }; What is the simplest way to test this patch? Regards.
