On Thu, Aug 08, 2019 at 05:29:24PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote: > On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 at 14:55, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.ho...@arm.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 04:37:45PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > > > Current PSCI code handles idle state entry through the > > > psci_cpu_suspend_enter() API, that takes an idle state index as a > > > parameter and convert the index into a previously initialized > > > power_state parameter before calling the PSCI.CPU_SUSPEND() with it. > > > > > > This is unwieldly, since it forces the PSCI firmware layer to keep track > > > of power_state parameter for every idle state so that the > > > index->power_state conversion can be made in the PSCI firmware layer > > > instead of the CPUidle driver implementations. > > > > > > Move the power_state handling out of drivers/firmware/psci > > > into the respective ACPI/DT PSCI CPUidle backends and convert > > > the psci_cpu_suspend_enter() API to get the power_state > > > parameter as input, which makes it closer to its firmware > > > interface PSCI.CPU_SUSPEND() API. > > > > > > A notable side effect is that the PSCI ACPI/DT CPUidle backends > > > now can directly handle (and if needed update) power_state > > > parameters before handing them over to the PSCI firmware > > > interface to trigger PSCI.CPU_SUSPEND() calls. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieral...@arm.com> > > > Cc: Will Deacon <w...@kernel.org> > > > Cc: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hans...@linaro.org> > > > Cc: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.ho...@arm.com> > > > > Reviewed-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.ho...@arm.com> > > > > > +static __init int psci_cpu_init_idle(unsigned int cpu) > > > +{ > > > + struct device_node *cpu_node; > > > + int ret; > > > + > > > + /* > > > + * If the PSCI cpu_suspend function hook has not been initialized > > > + * idle states must not be enabled, so bail out > > > + */ > > > + if (!psci_ops.cpu_suspend) > > > + return -EOPNOTSUPP; > > > + > > > + cpu_node = of_get_cpu_node(cpu, NULL); > > > > [nit] You could use of_cpu_device_node_get in linux/of_device.h as > > it may avoid parsing if used later during the boot(i.e. after > > cpu->of_node is populated). I think there's another instance in > > psci_idle_init_cpu > > Good idea! > > However, as $subject patch more or less just moves code from the > current psci firmware directory into cpuidle, perhaps it's better to > defer improvements to be made on top? >
I am fine either way. But since cpuidle-psci.c is new file introduced in this series, we can have it as part of the original patch. I leave it to Lorenzo to decide :) -- Regards, Sudeep