On Fri, 2014-10-24 at 15:30 +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 08:53:00AM +0100, Preeti U Murthy wrote: > > We hard code the metrics relevant for cpuidle states in the kernel today. > > Instead pick them up from the device tree so that they remain relevant > > and updated for the system that the kernel is running on. > > Device tree properties should be documented, and these bindings are > getting very similar to the ones I have just completed for ARM, > I wonder whether we should take the generic bits out of ARM bindings (ie > exit_latency) and make those available to other architectures.
The firmware that emits those properties is already in the field, so it would have been nice to use a generic binding but it's too late now. cheers _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
