From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1756603AbcDLO3t (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 12 Apr 2016 10:29:49 -0400
Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:56175 "EHLO foss.arm.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1756012AbcDLO3r (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 12 Apr 2016 10:29:47 -0400
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/5] ACPI / processor_idle: Add support for Low Power
 Idle(LPI) states
To: Vikas Sajjan <sajjan.linux@gmail.com>
References: <1449065446-26115-1-git-send-email-sudeep.holla@arm.com>
 <1449065446-26115-6-git-send-email-sudeep.holla@arm.com>
 <CAGm_ybhENGdNCUQw3OPb7XN+kLVdeyugTq+Py0iMNP-v3rGBsg@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org,
        Al Stone <al.stone@linaro.org>,
        Lorenzo Pieralisi <Lorenzo.Pieralisi@arm.com>,
        Mahesh Sivasubramanian <msivasub@codeaurora.org>,
        Ashwin Chaugule <ashwin.chaugule@linaro.org>,
        Prashanth Prakash <pprakash@codeaurora.org>,
        Vikas C Sajjan <vikas.cha.sajjan@hpe.com>,
        Sunil V L <sunil.vl@hpe.com>
From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
Organization: ARM
Message-ID: <570D0656.1000608@arm.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 15:29:42 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAGm_ybhENGdNCUQw3OPb7XN+kLVdeyugTq+Py0iMNP-v3rGBsg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org



On 12/04/16 05:06, Vikas Sajjan wrote:
> Hi Sudeep,
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 7:40 PM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote:

[...]

>> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c b/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c
>> index 29f787b2493f..bfc59de0ce6b 100644
>> --- a/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c
>> +++ b/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c
>> @@ -90,7 +90,7 @@ static void acpi_processor_notify(acpi_handle handle, u32 event, void *data)
>>                                                    pr->performance_platform_limit);
>>                  break;
>>          case ACPI_PROCESSOR_NOTIFY_POWER:
>> -               acpi_processor_cst_has_changed(pr);
>> +               acpi_processor_power_state_has_changed(pr);
>
> The function  acpi_processor_power_state_has_changed() has a check as below,
>
>   if (nocst)
>             return -ENODEV;
>
> So was wondering if the platform supports only _LPI and  _CST is not
> supported, the 'nocst' module param passed will be 1,
> and function will return -ENODEV.
>

You are right, it needs to be handled correctly. Thanks for spotting this.

> Hence, with the introduction of LPI, should we be handling "nocst"
> appropriately.
> Similar is the case in function  int acpi_processor_hotplug(struct
> acpi_processor *pr);
>

Correct.

> Let me know, if i am missing something here.
>

I don't think so. Once again thanks for the review.

-- 
Regards,
Sudeep