These couple of patches use the new cpuidle core api to refactor some part of the code. The first one declares the states directly in the driver declaration and the second one use the timekeeping flag to let the cpuidle core to compute the idle time.
I don't have this board, I was not able to test these patches.
Daniel Lezcano (2): ARM: s3c64xx: cpuidle - declare the states with the new api ARM: s3c64xx: cpuidle - use timekeeping wrapper
arch/arm/mach-s3c64xx/cpuidle.c | 45 +++++++++++++-------------------------- 1 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)
The states are now part of the cpuidle_driver structure, so we can declare the states in this structure directly. That saves us an extra variable declaration and a memcpy.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano daniel.lezcano@linaro.org --- arch/arm/mach-s3c64xx/cpuidle.c | 33 ++++++++++++++------------------- 1 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-s3c64xx/cpuidle.c b/arch/arm/mach-s3c64xx/cpuidle.c index 179460f..2750e54 100644 --- a/arch/arm/mach-s3c64xx/cpuidle.c +++ b/arch/arm/mach-s3c64xx/cpuidle.c @@ -51,33 +51,28 @@ static int s3c64xx_enter_idle(struct cpuidle_device *dev, return index; }
-static struct cpuidle_state s3c64xx_cpuidle_set[] = { - [0] = { - .enter = s3c64xx_enter_idle, - .exit_latency = 1, - .target_residency = 1, - .flags = CPUIDLE_FLAG_TIME_VALID, - .name = "IDLE", - .desc = "System active, ARM gated", - }, -}; +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct cpuidle_device, s3c64xx_cpuidle_device);
static struct cpuidle_driver s3c64xx_cpuidle_driver = { - .name = "s3c64xx_cpuidle", - .owner = THIS_MODULE, - .state_count = ARRAY_SIZE(s3c64xx_cpuidle_set), -}; - -static struct cpuidle_device s3c64xx_cpuidle_device = { - .state_count = ARRAY_SIZE(s3c64xx_cpuidle_set), + .name = "s3c64xx_cpuidle", + .owner = THIS_MODULE, + .states = { + { + .enter = s3c64xx_enter_idle, + .exit_latency = 1, + .target_residency = 1, + .flags = CPUIDLE_FLAG_TIME_VALID, + .name = "IDLE", + .desc = "System active, ARM gated", + }, + }, + .state_count = 1, };
static int __init s3c64xx_init_cpuidle(void) { int ret;
- memcpy(s3c64xx_cpuidle_driver.states, s3c64xx_cpuidle_set, - sizeof(s3c64xx_cpuidle_set)); cpuidle_register_driver(&s3c64xx_cpuidle_driver);
ret = cpuidle_register_device(&s3c64xx_cpuidle_device);
The timekeeping is computed from the cpuidle core if we set the .en_core_tk_irqen flag. Let's use it and remove the duplicated code.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano daniel.lezcano@linaro.org --- arch/arm/mach-s3c64xx/cpuidle.c | 12 +----------- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-s3c64xx/cpuidle.c b/arch/arm/mach-s3c64xx/cpuidle.c index 2750e54..acb197c 100644 --- a/arch/arm/mach-s3c64xx/cpuidle.c +++ b/arch/arm/mach-s3c64xx/cpuidle.c @@ -27,12 +27,7 @@ static int s3c64xx_enter_idle(struct cpuidle_device *dev, struct cpuidle_driver *drv, int index) { - struct timeval before, after; unsigned long tmp; - int idle_time; - - local_irq_disable(); - do_gettimeofday(&before);
/* Setup PWRCFG to enter idle mode */ tmp = __raw_readl(S3C64XX_PWR_CFG); @@ -42,12 +37,6 @@ static int s3c64xx_enter_idle(struct cpuidle_device *dev,
cpu_do_idle();
- do_gettimeofday(&after); - local_irq_enable(); - idle_time = (after.tv_sec - before.tv_sec) * USEC_PER_SEC + - (after.tv_usec - before.tv_usec); - - dev->last_residency = idle_time; return index; }
@@ -56,6 +45,7 @@ static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct cpuidle_device, s3c64xx_cpuidle_device); static struct cpuidle_driver s3c64xx_cpuidle_driver = { .name = "s3c64xx_cpuidle", .owner = THIS_MODULE, + .en_core_tk_irqen = 1, .states = { { .enter = s3c64xx_enter_idle,
On 05/09/2012 04:08 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
These couple of patches use the new cpuidle core api to refactor some part of the code. The first one declares the states directly in the driver declaration and the second one use the timekeeping flag to let the cpuidle core to compute the idle time.
I don't have this board, I was not able to test these patches.
Daniel Lezcano (2): ARM: s3c64xx: cpuidle - declare the states with the new api ARM: s3c64xx: cpuidle - use timekeeping wrapper
Are these patches ok for inclusion ?
Thanks -- Daniel
Am Montag, 14. Mai 2012, 01:51:00 schrieb Daniel Lezcano:
On 05/09/2012 04:08 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
These couple of patches use the new cpuidle core api to refactor some part of the code. The first one declares the states directly in the driver declaration and the second one use the timekeeping flag to let the cpuidle core to compute the idle time.
I don't have this board, I was not able to test these patches.
Daniel Lezcano (2): ARM: s3c64xx: cpuidle - declare the states with the new api ARM: s3c64xx: cpuidle - use timekeeping wrapper
Are these patches ok for inclusion ?
you might want to include the maintainer
Kukjin Kim kgene.kim@samsung.com
and the samsung list
linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org
into your recipients
Heiko
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 10:52:46AM +0200, Heiko St??bner wrote:
Am Montag, 14. Mai 2012, 01:51:00 schrieb Daniel Lezcano:
On 05/09/2012 04:08 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
Are these patches ok for inclusion ?
you might want to include the maintainer
Kukjin Kim kgene.kim@samsung.com
and the samsung list
linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org
into your recipients
Also the original author (me).
On 05/14/2012 10:57 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 10:52:46AM +0200, Heiko St??bner wrote:
Am Montag, 14. Mai 2012, 01:51:00 schrieb Daniel Lezcano:
On 05/09/2012 04:08 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
Are these patches ok for inclusion ?
you might want to include the maintainer
Kukjin Kimkgene.kim@samsung.com
and the samsung list
linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org
into your recipients
Also the original author (me).
Oh, ok. I thought I did it, sorry.
-- Daniel
On 05/14/12 18:22, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
On 05/14/2012 10:57 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 10:52:46AM +0200, Heiko St??bner wrote:
Am Montag, 14. Mai 2012, 01:51:00 schrieb Daniel Lezcano:
On 05/09/2012 04:08 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
Are these patches ok for inclusion ?
you might want to include the maintainer
Kukjin Kimkgene.kim@samsung.com
and the samsung list
linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org
into your recipients
Also the original author (me).
Oh, ok. I thought I did it, sorry.
Heiko, thanks :-)
Daniel, could you please re-submit this series with adding me and Mark Brown in Cc. I couldn't find your patches in my mailbox...
Thanks.
Best regards, Kgene. -- Kukjin Kim kgene.kim@samsung.com, Senior Engineer, SW Solution Development Team, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
On 05/14/2012 03:51 PM, Kukjin Kim wrote:
On 05/14/12 18:22, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
On 05/14/2012 10:57 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 10:52:46AM +0200, Heiko St??bner wrote:
Am Montag, 14. Mai 2012, 01:51:00 schrieb Daniel Lezcano:
On 05/09/2012 04:08 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
Are these patches ok for inclusion ?
you might want to include the maintainer
Kukjin Kimkgene.kim@samsung.com
and the samsung list
linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org
into your recipients
Also the original author (me).
Oh, ok. I thought I did it, sorry.
Heiko, thanks :-)
Daniel, could you please re-submit this series with adding me and Mark Brown in Cc. I couldn't find your patches in my mailbox...
Sure.
On 05/14/2012 10:57 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 10:52:46AM +0200, Heiko St??bner wrote:
Am Montag, 14. Mai 2012, 01:51:00 schrieb Daniel Lezcano:
On 05/09/2012 04:08 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote: Are these patches ok for inclusion ?
you might want to include the maintainer Kukjin Kimkgene.kim@samsung.com and the samsung list linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org into your recipients
Also the original author (me).
Mark,
I noticed you are not in the cpuidle.c header file neither in the MAINTAINERS entry for the s3c64xx. Just FYI.
Thanks -- Daniel
-
Daniel Lezcano -
Heiko Stübner -
Kukjin Kim -
Mark Brown