lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [May]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/3] cpuidle: updates related to tick_broadcast_enter() failures
Date
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net> writes:

> On Wednesday, May 13, 2015 05:13:27 PM Kevin Hilman wrote:
>> On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 5:16 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> wrote:
>> > On Wednesday, May 13, 2015 03:59:55 PM Kevin Hilman wrote:
>> >> "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net> writes:
>> >>
>> >> [...]
>> >>
>> >> > Second, quite honestly, I don't see a connection to genpd here.
>> >>
>> >> The connection with genpd is because the *reason* the timer was
>> >> shutdown/stopped is because it shares power with the CPU, which is why
>> >> the timer stops when the CPU hits ceratin low power states. IOW, it's
>> >> in the same power domain as the CPU.
>> >
>> > Well, what if you don't have genpd on that system? Is the problem at hand not
>> > relevant then magically?
>>
>> Well, if you're not using genpd to model hardware power domain
>> dependencies, then yes you'll definitely need a different solution.
>>
>> And, as we discussed on IRC. If you only care about timers, and genpd
>> is not in use, then $SUBJECT series is a fine approach, and I have no
>> objections. But for SoCs where there are several other things that
>> share power with CPU, we need a more generic, genpd based solution,
>> which it seems we're in agreement on. And since the two approaches
>> are not mutually exclusive, then I have real objections to applying
>> this series.
>
> I guess a "no" is missing in the last sentence. ;-)

Correct. I have *no* real objections to applying this series.

Kevin



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-05-14 02:41    [W:1.064 / U:0.412 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site