[PATCH v2 0/3] ARM: imx: Add cpuidle for imx platforms

[Rob Lee]

Hello Amit,

On 20 September 2011 03:03, Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria at linaro.org> wrote:
> On 11 Sep 20, Sascha Hauer wrote:
>> Hi Robert,
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 12:27:47PM -0500, Robert Lee wrote:
>> > This patch series adds a common imx cpuidle driver, some common
>> > mach-mx5 level cpuidle functionality, and an i.MX51 instance of
>> > using this driver.
>> >
>> > The patch series is based on v3.1-rc2.
>> >
>> > Changes since v1:
>> > * To address all the problems found during review of v1, a complete
>> > re-write was needed.
>>
>> Much better than the last version, thanks.
>>
>> >
>> > Robert Lee (3):
>> >   ARM: imx: Add imx cpuidle driver
>> >   ARM: imx: Add cpuidle for mach-mx5
>> >   ARM: imx: Add cpuidle for i.MX51
>> >
>> >  arch/arm/mach-mx5/Makefile               |    3 +-
>> >  arch/arm/mach-mx5/cpu_op-mx51.c          |   35 +++++++-
>>
>> Your additions to this file...
>>
>> >  arch/arm/mach-mx5/cpu_op-mx51.h          |    1 +
>> >  arch/arm/mach-mx5/mm.c                   |    4 +
>> >  arch/arm/mach-mx5/system.c               |   35 +++++++
>>
>> And this one should go to arch/arm/mach-mx5/cpuidle.c, then we have
>> all i.MX5 specific cpuidle stuff together without ifdeffing the code.
>> I assume that cpuidle support for i.MX53 will look identically, right?
>
> Yes, let's not separate only for i.MX51. i.MX53 and even i.MX6 might look
> similar. They can always tune the exit latency criteria if needed.
>

i.MX6 will have significantly different exit_latency values and may need
to have target residency values as well.  Also, i.MX6 may have a
different number of states, so I think it is best to have separate sets of
SoC state data as needed instead of trying to make one set of state data
to be used by all i.MX6.

>
>