From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: sudeep.holla@arm.com (Sudeep Holla) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2016 13:59:23 +0100 Subject: [PATCH v9 0/7] ACPI / processor_idle: Add ACPI v6.0 LPI support In-Reply-To: <2164074.OnkmXO2GSJ@vostro.rjw.lan> References: <1467997678-7107-1-git-send-email-sudeep.holla@arm.com> <5784D78E.7010409@arm.com> <2164074.OnkmXO2GSJ@vostro.rjw.lan> Message-ID: <5784E9AB.1070507@arm.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 12/07/16 13:09, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Tuesday, July 12, 2016 12:42:06 PM Sudeep Holla wrote: >> >> On 08/07/16 18:07, Sudeep Holla wrote: >>> ACPI 6.0 introduced LPI(Low Power Idle) states that provides an alternate >>> method to describe processor idle states. It extends the specification >>> to allow the expression of idle states like C-states selectable by the >>> OSPM when a processor goes idle, but may affect more than one processor, >>> and may affect other system components. >>> >>> LPI extensions leverages the processor container device(again introduced >>> in ACPI 6.0) allowing to express which parts of the system are affected >>> by a given LPI state. It defines the local power states for each node >>> in a hierarchical processor topology. The OSPM can use _LPI object to >>> select a local power state for each level of processor hierarchy in the >>> system. They used to produce a composite power state request that is >>> presented to the platform by the OSPM. >>> >>> Since multiple processors affect the idle state for any non-leaf hierarchy >>> node, coordination of idle state requests between the processors is >>> required. ACPI supports two different coordination schemes: Platform >>> coordinated and OS initiated. >>> >> >> I was hoping to get this in v4.8 now that merge window is >> delayed/extended if you have no further comments on this series. > > I'll get to it in the next couple of days. If it looks all good and there are > no comments, I'll queue it up. > Thanks for the update. -- Regards, Sudeep