On 03/21/2012 02:43 PM, Jean Pihet wrote:
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Santosh Shilimkar santosh.shilimkar@ti.com wrote:
Daniel,
On Wednesday 21 March 2012 02:57 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
This patchset is a proposition to improve a bit the code. The changes are code cleanup and does not change the behavior of the driver itself.
A couple a things call my intention. Why the cpuidle device is set for cpu0 only and why the WFI is not used ?
Daniel Lezcano (7): ARM: OMAP4: cpuidle - Remove unused valid field ARM: OMAP4: cpuidle - Declare the states with the driver declaration ARM: OMAP4: cpuidle - Remove the cpuidle_params_table table ARM: OMAP4: cpuidle - fix static omap4_idle_data declaration ARM: OMAP4: cpuidle - Initialize omap4_idle_data at compile time ARM: OMAP4: cpuidle - use the omap4_idle_data variable directly ARM: OMAP4: cpuidle - remove omap4_idle_data initialization at boot time
The series looks fine to me in general. This clean-up is applicable for OMAP3 cpuidle code as well.
Great! However OMAP3 has a few specific things that cannot be removed as easily:
- the 'valid' flag is used because only certain combinations of power
domains states are possible,
When I look the board-rx51 code I see:
static struct cpuidle_params rx51_cpuidle_params[] = { /* C1 */ {110 + 162, 5 , 1}, /* C2 */ {106 + 180, 309, 1}, /* C3 */ {107 + 410, 46057, 0}, /* C4 */ {121 + 3374, 46057, 0}, /* C5 */ {855 + 1146, 46057, 1}, /* C6 */ {7580 + 4134, 484329, 0}, /* C7 */ {7505 + 15274, 484329, 1}, };
If C3, C4, C6 are not valid, so AFAICS never used in the cpuidle code why the values are 'exit_latency' and 'target_residency' specified ? I mean why don't we have { 0, 0, 0 } ? Is it just for information ?
I understand the purpose of this code but it looks a bit tricky and hard to factor out. Is it acceptable to create a new cpuidle driver for rx51 then we factor out the code between omap3, omap4 and rx51 when all the code consistent ?
- the latency settings can be overriden by the board code, so the
cpuidle_params struct is needed.
I want Jean to look at this series because some of his earlier clean up has introduced those custom functions which are getting removed in this series.
Regards santosh
Thanks, Jean