Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v6 4/5] arm64: add support for ACPI Low Power Idle(LPI) | From | Sudeep Holla <> | Date | Mon, 27 Jun 2016 18:58:58 +0100 |
| |
On 27/06/16 18:07, Sudeep Holla wrote: > > > On 27/06/16 17:29, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
[...]
>> >> acpi_disabled - acpi_disabled - acpi_disabled everywhere :/ >> >> The enable-method approach is not straightforward and now it is polluted >> by acpi-disabled. >> >> So IIUC, >> >> smp_init_cpus (contains acpi_disabled) >> smp_cpu_setup >> cpu_read_ops >> cpu_read_enable_method (contains acpi_disabled) >> acpi_get_enable_method (returns 'psci' after checking >> psci_is_present) >> >> Then psci_cpu_init_idle is called... and check again acpi_disabled. >> >> IMO, the circumlocution with the psci vs acpi vs acpi_disabled is >> getting unnecessary too complex, is prone to error and will lead to >> unmaintainable code very soon. >> >> I suggest to sort out encapsulation and self-contained code before >> adding more feature in this area. >> > > I understand your concern but I have no idea on how to clean up. Lorenzo > asked to factor our common code between psci_{dt,acpi}_cpu_init_idle and > I think you might not like the refactoring[1]. I didn't want to change > cpuidle_ops and hence psci_dt_cpu_init_idle parameters. I will see if > changing that simplifies things. >
One of the reasons for adding acpi_disabled check is to keep the other logic at the same place. Otherwise we end up duplicating that code which is what I have done in psci_{dt,acpi}_cpu_init_idle at the first place.
-- Regards, Sudeep
| |