Dear Russell,
On Wed, 8 Jul 2015 19:38:42 +0800
Jisheng Zhang <jszh...@marvell.com> wrote:
> Dear Russell,
>
> On Wed, 8 Jul 2015 11:34:29 +0100
> Russell King - ARM Linux <li...@arm.linux.org.uk> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 06:13:37PM +0800, Jisheng Zhang wrote:
> > > This patch implements cpuidle_ops using psci. After this patch, we can use
> > > cpuidle-arm.c with psci backend for both arm and arm64.
> >
> > I really don't see the point of most of the patches in this series.
> >
> > To summarise, what you're doing is:
> >
> > 1. Renaming arch/arm/kernel/psci_smp.c to arch/arm/kernel/psci.c
> > 2. Adding a #ifdef CONFIG_SMP around _all_ the code in psci.c
> > 3. Adding cpuidle code with an #ifdef CONFIG_CPU_IDLE around all the
> > CPU idle code.
> >
> > So, we end up with a file which contains:
> >
> > /*
> > header
> > */
> > #include statements
> >
> > /*
> > some commentry relevant to SMP code
> > */
> > #ifdef CONFIG_CPU_IDLE
> > ... cpu idle code ...
> > #endif
> > #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> > ... smp code ...
> > #endif
> >
> > which (a) is a mess, and (b) is unnecessary. The only relevant bits which
> > are shared are the #include statements.
> >
> > Please try this alternative approach:
> >
> > 1. Leave psci_smp.c alone.
> > 2. Add arch/arm/kernel/psci_cpuidle.c containing the #include statements
> > you need, and the CPU idle code.
After more consideration, I have one concern.
Currently, cpuidle_ops is defined as the following,
> struct cpuidle_ops {
> int (*suspend)(int cpu, unsigned long arg);
the cpu may not be necessary, because to-be-suspended cpu is always the calling
cpu itself.
> int (*init)(struct device_node *, int cpu);
the device_node here may not be necessary either, because we can get the node
via. of_get_cpu_node.
So if we refine cpuidle_ops defintion, the code would be as simple as
static struct cpuidle_ops psci_cpuidle_ops __initdata = {
.suspend = cpu_psci_cpu_suspend,
.init = cpu_psci_cpu_init_idle,
};
CPUIDLE_METHOD_OF_DECLARE(psci_idle, "psci", &psci_cpuidle_ops);
I'm not sure a new psci_cpuidle.c only with above 5 lines is acceptable or not.
Thanks,
Jisheng
> >
> > I think such an approach will reduce your patch series to two patches,
> > one moving the ARM64 code, and one adding the cpuidle code.
> >
>
> Good idea! Will refine the patches as you suggested.
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
