From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756371AbcH2HYd (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Aug 2016 03:24:33 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.136]:43134 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750738AbcH2HYc (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Aug 2016 03:24:32 -0400 Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2016 15:23:47 +0800 From: Shawn Guo To: Lucas Stach , Yongcai Huang Cc: "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Fabio Estevam , "linux@armlinux.org.uk" , "kernel@pengutronix.de" Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: imx: add cpuidle support for i.mx6ul Message-ID: <20160829072347.GJ30790@tiger> References: <1472055231-28434-1-git-send-email-Anson.Huang@nxp.com> <1472029735.2780.3.camel@pengutronix.de> <1472033090.2780.20.camel@pengutronix.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1472033090.2780.20.camel@pengutronix.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 12:04:50PM +0200, Lucas Stach wrote: > Personally I would just remove the condition, but if you are concerned > about the double L1 flush overhead (I wouldn't worry about this, it > should be negligible) you should really make this conditional on an > architected L2 being present. Making it conditional on the outer cache > being absent is confusing. Anson, Is there any concern or problem if we follow Lucas' suggestion to unconditionally calls flush_cache_all() here? Shawn From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: shawnguo@kernel.org (Shawn Guo) Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2016 15:23:47 +0800 Subject: [PATCH] ARM: imx: add cpuidle support for i.mx6ul In-Reply-To: <1472033090.2780.20.camel@pengutronix.de> References: <1472055231-28434-1-git-send-email-Anson.Huang@nxp.com> <1472029735.2780.3.camel@pengutronix.de> <1472033090.2780.20.camel@pengutronix.de> Message-ID: <20160829072347.GJ30790@tiger> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 12:04:50PM +0200, Lucas Stach wrote: > Personally I would just remove the condition, but if you are concerned > about the double L1 flush overhead (I wouldn't worry about this, it > should be negligible) you should really make this conditional on an > architected L2 being present. Making it conditional on the outer cache > being absent is confusing. Anson, Is there any concern or problem if we follow Lucas' suggestion to unconditionally calls flush_cache_all() here? Shawn