All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>
To: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
	Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>,
	Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@marvell.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] ARM64: kernel: PSCI: move PSCI idle management code to drivers/firmware
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2016 09:46:44 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160107094644.GA23819@red-moon> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160106214439.GB19062@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>

On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 09:44:39PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 04:55:45PM +0000, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 05, 2016 at 01:34:47PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > That immediately worries me, because it bypasses the CPU dependencies
> > > for ARM_CPU_SUSPEND implicitly applied via ARCH_SUSPEND_POSSIBLE.  I'd
> > > prefer instead:
> > > 
> > > config ARM_PSCI_CPU_IDLE
> > > 	def_bool ARM_PSCI_FW && CPU_IDLE && (!ARM || ARM_CPU_SUSPEND)
> > 
> > If you are not against it, I could make ARM_PSCI select ARM_CPU_SUSPEND,
> > the CPU dependency would be taken into account (ie CPU_V7) and this
> > would mirror what's done for the eg BL_SWITCHER.
> 
> If you're proposing to always build the code in psci.c when ARM_PSCI_FW
> is enabled, I'd rather do this:
> 
> config ARM_CPU_SUSPEND
>         def_bool PM_SLEEP || BL_SWITCHER || ARM_PSCI_FW
> 	depends on ARCH_SUSPEND_POSSIBLE
> 
> rather than have stuff select this option.

Agreed, I will do that with two patches (ie one to update the
BL_SWITCHER config entry). It has the side effect of pulling in
ARM_CPU_SUSPEND even if !SUSPEND && !CPU_IDLE when ARM_PSCI
is selected but I do not think that's a real issue, to be confirmed.

Still, some ARM CPUidle drivers will have to select ARM_CPU_SUSPEND
on a case by case basis, I do not know how we can improve that, but
that's not related to this patch series per-se.

Thanks,
Lorenzo

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com (Lorenzo Pieralisi)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH v3 2/2] ARM64: kernel: PSCI: move PSCI idle management code to drivers/firmware
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2016 09:46:44 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160107094644.GA23819@red-moon> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160106214439.GB19062@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>

On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 09:44:39PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 04:55:45PM +0000, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 05, 2016 at 01:34:47PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > That immediately worries me, because it bypasses the CPU dependencies
> > > for ARM_CPU_SUSPEND implicitly applied via ARCH_SUSPEND_POSSIBLE.  I'd
> > > prefer instead:
> > > 
> > > config ARM_PSCI_CPU_IDLE
> > > 	def_bool ARM_PSCI_FW && CPU_IDLE && (!ARM || ARM_CPU_SUSPEND)
> > 
> > If you are not against it, I could make ARM_PSCI select ARM_CPU_SUSPEND,
> > the CPU dependency would be taken into account (ie CPU_V7) and this
> > would mirror what's done for the eg BL_SWITCHER.
> 
> If you're proposing to always build the code in psci.c when ARM_PSCI_FW
> is enabled, I'd rather do this:
> 
> config ARM_CPU_SUSPEND
>         def_bool PM_SLEEP || BL_SWITCHER || ARM_PSCI_FW
> 	depends on ARCH_SUSPEND_POSSIBLE
> 
> rather than have stuff select this option.

Agreed, I will do that with two patches (ie one to update the
BL_SWITCHER config entry). It has the side effect of pulling in
ARM_CPU_SUSPEND even if !SUSPEND && !CPU_IDLE when ARM_PSCI
is selected but I do not think that's a real issue, to be confirmed.

Still, some ARM CPUidle drivers will have to select ARM_CPU_SUSPEND
on a case by case basis, I do not know how we can improve that, but
that's not related to this patch series per-se.

Thanks,
Lorenzo

  reply	other threads:[~2016-01-07  9:45 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-10-16 16:02 [PATCH v3 0/2] Enabling PSCI based idle on ARM 32-bit platforms Lorenzo Pieralisi
2015-10-16 16:02 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2015-10-16 16:02 ` [PATCH v3 1/2] ARM: cpuidle: remove cpu parameter from the cpuidle_ops suspend hook Lorenzo Pieralisi
2015-10-16 16:02   ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2015-12-16 20:58   ` Daniel Lezcano
2015-12-16 20:58     ` Daniel Lezcano
2015-10-16 16:02 ` [PATCH v3 2/2] ARM64: kernel: PSCI: move PSCI idle management code to drivers/firmware Lorenzo Pieralisi
2015-10-16 16:02   ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2015-12-16 20:57   ` Daniel Lezcano
2015-12-16 20:57     ` Daniel Lezcano
2016-01-05 10:59   ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2016-01-05 10:59     ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2016-01-05 12:31     ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2016-01-05 12:31       ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2016-01-05 12:51       ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2016-01-05 12:51         ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2016-01-05 13:27         ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2016-01-05 13:27           ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2016-01-05 13:34           ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2016-01-05 13:34             ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2016-01-05 15:28             ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2016-01-05 15:28               ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2016-01-06 16:55             ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2016-01-06 16:55               ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2016-01-06 21:44               ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2016-01-06 21:44                 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2016-01-07  9:46                 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi [this message]
2016-01-07  9:46                   ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2016-01-25 12:17 [PATCH v3 0/2] Enabling PSCI based idle on ARM 32-bit platforms Lorenzo Pieralisi
2016-01-25 12:17 ` [PATCH v3 2/2] ARM64: kernel: PSCI: move PSCI idle management code to drivers/firmware Lorenzo Pieralisi
2016-01-25 12:17   ` Lorenzo Pieralisi

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20160107094644.GA23819@red-moon \
    --to=lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=daniel.lezcano@linaro.org \
    --cc=jszhang@marvell.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux@arm.linux.org.uk \
    --cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
    --cc=sudeep.holla@arm.com \
    --cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.