Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2] ARM: cpuidle: fix !cpuidle_ops[cpu].init case during init | From | Daniel Lezcano <> | Date | Wed, 30 Mar 2016 10:41:09 +0200 |
| |
On 03/30/2016 10:17 AM, Jisheng Zhang wrote: > On Wed, 30 Mar 2016 10:09:12 +0200 Daniel Lezcano wrote: > >> On 03/30/2016 09:16 AM, Jisheng Zhang wrote: >>> Hi Daniel, >> >> [ ... ] >> >> Added Lorenzo and Catalin. >> >>>> Hi Jisheng, >>>> >>>> this should be handled in the arm_cpuidle_read_ops function. >>>> >>> >>> Thanks for reviewing. After some consideration, I think this patch isn't correct >>> There may be platforms which doesn't need the init member at all, although >>> currently I don't see such platforms in mainline, So I'll drop this patch >>> and send out one v2 only does the optimization. >> >> There is an inconsistency between ARM and ARM64. The 'cpu_get_ops', the >> arm_cpuidle_read_ops from the ARM64 side, returns -EOPNOTSUPP when the >> init function is not there for cpuidle. > > yes. > arm64's arm_cpuidle_init() returns -EOPNOTSUPP if init callback isn't defined > >> >> I don't think it is a problem, but as ARM/ARM64 are sharing the same >> cpuidle-arm.c driver it would make sense to unify the behavior between >> both archs. > > yes, agree with you. From "unify" point of view, could I move back the suspend > callback check and init callback check into arm_cpuidle_init() for arm as V1 does?
Why ? To be consistent with ARM64 ?
-- <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook | <http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter | <http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog
| |