Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 5/5] ACPI / processor_idle: Add support for Low Power Idle(LPI) states | From | Sudeep Holla <> | Date | Tue, 12 Apr 2016 15:29:42 +0100 |
| |
On 12/04/16 05:06, Vikas Sajjan wrote: > Hi Sudeep, > > > On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 7:40 PM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote:
[...]
>> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c b/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c >> index 29f787b2493f..bfc59de0ce6b 100644 >> --- a/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c >> +++ b/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c >> @@ -90,7 +90,7 @@ static void acpi_processor_notify(acpi_handle handle, u32 event, void *data) >> pr->performance_platform_limit); >> break; >> case ACPI_PROCESSOR_NOTIFY_POWER: >> - acpi_processor_cst_has_changed(pr); >> + acpi_processor_power_state_has_changed(pr); > > The function acpi_processor_power_state_has_changed() has a check as below, > > if (nocst) > return -ENODEV; > > So was wondering if the platform supports only _LPI and _CST is not > supported, the 'nocst' module param passed will be 1, > and function will return -ENODEV. >
You are right, it needs to be handled correctly. Thanks for spotting this.
> Hence, with the introduction of LPI, should we be handling "nocst" > appropriately. > Similar is the case in function int acpi_processor_hotplug(struct > acpi_processor *pr); >
Correct.
> Let me know, if i am missing something here. >
I don't think so. Once again thanks for the review.
-- Regards, Sudeep
| |