From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757874Ab3BKQLu (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Feb 2013 11:11:50 -0500 Received: from caramon.arm.linux.org.uk ([78.32.30.218]:40307 "EHLO caramon.arm.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757840Ab3BKQLt (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Feb 2013 11:11:49 -0500 Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 16:11:25 +0000 From: Russell King - ARM Linux To: Catalin Marinas Cc: Len Brown , Len Brown , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/16] ARM idle: delete pm_idle Message-ID: <20130211161125.GM17833@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <2b219d07e0f287c2c713f5465fc8646158fa986e.1360475150.git.len.brown@intel.com> <9838a4aeee256adeaef90efe56df2c9988206982.1360475150.git.len.brown@intel.com> <20130211160229.GB5676@MacBook-Pro.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130211160229.GB5676@MacBook-Pro.local> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-01-05) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 04:02:30PM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 05:58:13AM +0000, Len Brown wrote: > > pm_idle() on ARM was a synonym for default_idle(), > > so simply invoke default_idle() directly. > > The clean-up looks fine as we already have an arm_pm_idle but longer > term I was thinking about having a common declaration similar to > pm_power_off that code under drivers/power/(reset/) can override (and > such driver may be shared by multiple architectures). OTOH, if you get > rid of the generic linux/pm.h declaration architectures can use a common > pm_idle name and type (though I think having it in the common header > would be better). For ARM this would mean s/arm_pm_idle/pm_idle/ on top > if your patch. pm_idle() was that common declaration - but it had the side effect that it was defined to be called with interrupts disabled, but return with interrupts enabled. arm_pm_idle() "fixed" that weirdness such that it's now expected to return with IRQs in the same state that it was called. pm_power_off() is a cross-arch hook already. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Russell King - ARM Linux Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/16] ARM idle: delete pm_idle Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 16:11:25 +0000 Message-ID: <20130211161125.GM17833@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <2b219d07e0f287c2c713f5465fc8646158fa986e.1360475150.git.len.brown@intel.com> <9838a4aeee256adeaef90efe56df2c9988206982.1360475150.git.len.brown@intel.com> <20130211160229.GB5676@MacBook-Pro.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from caramon.arm.linux.org.uk ([78.32.30.218]:40309 "EHLO caramon.arm.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757840Ab3BKQL4 (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Feb 2013 11:11:56 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130211160229.GB5676@MacBook-Pro.local> Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org To: Catalin Marinas Cc: Len Brown , Len Brown , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 04:02:30PM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 05:58:13AM +0000, Len Brown wrote: > > pm_idle() on ARM was a synonym for default_idle(), > > so simply invoke default_idle() directly. > > The clean-up looks fine as we already have an arm_pm_idle but longer > term I was thinking about having a common declaration similar to > pm_power_off that code under drivers/power/(reset/) can override (and > such driver may be shared by multiple architectures). OTOH, if you get > rid of the generic linux/pm.h declaration architectures can use a common > pm_idle name and type (though I think having it in the common header > would be better). For ARM this would mean s/arm_pm_idle/pm_idle/ on top > if your patch. pm_idle() was that common declaration - but it had the side effect that it was defined to be called with interrupts disabled, but return with interrupts enabled. arm_pm_idle() "fixed" that weirdness such that it's now expected to return with IRQs in the same state that it was called. pm_power_off() is a cross-arch hook already. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: linux@arm.linux.org.uk (Russell King - ARM Linux) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 16:11:25 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 06/16] ARM idle: delete pm_idle In-Reply-To: <20130211160229.GB5676@MacBook-Pro.local> References: <2b219d07e0f287c2c713f5465fc8646158fa986e.1360475150.git.len.brown@intel.com> <9838a4aeee256adeaef90efe56df2c9988206982.1360475150.git.len.brown@intel.com> <20130211160229.GB5676@MacBook-Pro.local> Message-ID: <20130211161125.GM17833@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 04:02:30PM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 05:58:13AM +0000, Len Brown wrote: > > pm_idle() on ARM was a synonym for default_idle(), > > so simply invoke default_idle() directly. > > The clean-up looks fine as we already have an arm_pm_idle but longer > term I was thinking about having a common declaration similar to > pm_power_off that code under drivers/power/(reset/) can override (and > such driver may be shared by multiple architectures). OTOH, if you get > rid of the generic linux/pm.h declaration architectures can use a common > pm_idle name and type (though I think having it in the common header > would be better). For ARM this would mean s/arm_pm_idle/pm_idle/ on top > if your patch. pm_idle() was that common declaration - but it had the side effect that it was defined to be called with interrupts disabled, but return with interrupts enabled. arm_pm_idle() "fixed" that weirdness such that it's now expected to return with IRQs in the same state that it was called. pm_power_off() is a cross-arch hook already.