[PATCH v3 2/2] ARM64: kernel: PSCI: move PSCI idle management code to drivers/firmware
Lorenzo Pieralisi
lorenzo.pieralisi at arm.com
Thu Jan 7 01:46:44 PST 2016
On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 09:44:39PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 04:55:45PM +0000, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 05, 2016 at 01:34:47PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > That immediately worries me, because it bypasses the CPU dependencies
> > > for ARM_CPU_SUSPEND implicitly applied via ARCH_SUSPEND_POSSIBLE. I'd
> > > prefer instead:
> > >
> > > config ARM_PSCI_CPU_IDLE
> > > def_bool ARM_PSCI_FW && CPU_IDLE && (!ARM || ARM_CPU_SUSPEND)
> >
> > If you are not against it, I could make ARM_PSCI select ARM_CPU_SUSPEND,
> > the CPU dependency would be taken into account (ie CPU_V7) and this
> > would mirror what's done for the eg BL_SWITCHER.
>
> If you're proposing to always build the code in psci.c when ARM_PSCI_FW
> is enabled, I'd rather do this:
>
> config ARM_CPU_SUSPEND
> def_bool PM_SLEEP || BL_SWITCHER || ARM_PSCI_FW
> depends on ARCH_SUSPEND_POSSIBLE
>
> rather than have stuff select this option.
Agreed, I will do that with two patches (ie one to update the
BL_SWITCHER config entry). It has the side effect of pulling in
ARM_CPU_SUSPEND even if !SUSPEND && !CPU_IDLE when ARM_PSCI
is selected but I do not think that's a real issue, to be confirmed.
Still, some ARM CPUidle drivers will have to select ARM_CPU_SUSPEND
on a case by case basis, I do not know how we can improve that, but
that's not related to this patch series per-se.
Thanks,
Lorenzo
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list