Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1654489
| From | Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH] ARM: cpuidle: Support asymmetric idle definition |
| Date | 2017-05-31 19:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <tNfLc-7R6-27@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | (4 earlier) <tJUWC-5LA-15@gated-at.bofh.it> <tJVfY-68S-33@gated-at.bofh.it> <tJWOK-6Ut-21@gated-at.bofh.it> <tJX85-7gH-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <tNeYN-7hE-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | ARM |
On 31/05/17 17:40, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > Hi Sudeep, Lorenzo, > > I have been thinking and looking at the domain-idle-state and I don't > see an obvious connection between what is describing the power domain, > the cpu idle driver and what we are trying to achieve. > I am not sure what you mean by *connection* above. 1. With old flat list of idle states, we should get the cpumask sharing the idle states from the phandle or something similar. 2. With new domain-idle-state and hierarchical DT binding, you just need to infer that from the hierarchy. > I would like to suggest something much more simple, register a cpuidle > driver per cpu, so every cpu can have its own idle definitions, that > should work for dynamiQ, smp and hmp. The impact on the driver will be > minimal. > Sounds simple, but not sure if it's scalable on platforms with relatively large number of CPUs like 48 or 96(e.g. Cavium Thunder -- Regards, Sudeep
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: [PATCH] ARM: cpuidle: Support asymmetric idle definition Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> - 2017-05-31 18:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH] ARM: cpuidle: Support asymmetric idle definition Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> - 2017-05-31 19:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH] ARM: cpuidle: Support asymmetric idle definition Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> - 2017-06-01 09:40 +0200
csiph-web