[PATCH v9 2/9] qcom: spm: Add Subsystem Power Manager driver

Lina Iyer lina.iyer at linaro.org
Wed Nov 26 07:20:03 PST 2014

On Wed, Nov 26 2014 at 04:19 -0700, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>On 11/19/2014 06:43 PM, Lina Iyer wrote:
>>On Fri, Nov 14 2014 at 08:56 -0700, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>>On 10/25/2014 01:40 AM, Lina Iyer wrote:
>>>>+    if ((cpu > -1) && !cpuidle_drv_init) {
>>>>+        platform_device_register(&qcom_cpuidle_device);
>>>>+        cpuidle_drv_init = true;
>>>>+    }
>>>'cpu' is always > -1.
>>OK. I was hoping to use -1 for not a cpu (i.e, L2) SPM. For now, I will
>>>If the 'spm_get_drv' succeed, cpu is no longer equal to -EINVAL.
>>>Otherwise we do not reach this point because we return right after
>>>spm_get_drv with an error.
>>>Adding the platform_device_register depending in a static variable is
>>>not very nice. Why not add it explicitely in a separate init routine
>>>we know it will be called one time (eg. at the same place than cpufreq
>>>is) ?
>>We want to register the cpuidle device only if any of the SPM devices
>>have been probed.
>>Ideally, Stephen and I would like to register cpuidle device separately
>>for each CPU SPM, when it is probed, so we would invoke cpuidle driver
>>and thereby the low power modes only for those cpus. However, the
>>complexity to do that, AFAICS, is very complex. I would need to change
>>quite a bit of the framework and in the cpuidle driver, I may have to
>>stray from the recommended format.
>>Here I set up cpuidle device, when I know atleast 1 cpu is ready to
>>allow low power modes.
>Yes, instead of using the generic cpuidle_register function, you can 
>use the low level functions for that.
>One call to cpuidle_register_driver in a single place and then 
>cpuidle_register_device for each spm probe.
>Wouldn't make sense ?

Yes, but there are some assumptions if we dont use

static void __cpuidle_driver_init(struct cpuidle_driver *drv)
        int i;
	drv->refcnt = 0; // Overwrites any cpuidle_driver_get()

The clean way was to use MULTIPLE_CPUIDLE_DRIVERS, which seems like an
incorrect use for this SoC.


More information about the linux-arm-kernel mailing list