Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 14 Jul 2015 13:29:04 +0100 | From | Russell King - ARM Linux <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] arm: kernel: implement cpuidle_ops with psci backend |
| |
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 12:03:02PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 11:34:21AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > > +static struct cpuidle_ops psci_cpuidle_ops __initdata = { > > > + .suspend = cpu_psci_cpu_suspend, > > > + .init = cpu_psci_cpu_init_idle, > > > +}; > > > +CPUIDLE_METHOD_OF_DECLARE(psci_cpuidle, "psci", &psci_cpuidle_ops); > > I take this as an ACK to M.Rutland's PSCI code move to drivers/firmware, > right ?
No, that's not something I've particularly looked at. PSCI doesn't really interest me because I have no systems which (afaik) support it.
> > We don't do this for other stuff - we don't have IRQ_CHIP_OF_DECLARE > > stuff in arch/arm but have the IRQ chip drivers in drivers/irqchip. > > We keep it all togehter in drivers/irqchip, even when the IRQ chip > > driver is only useful on ARM. > > CPUidle operations are ARM only, they are not used on ARM64, so > they belong in arch/arm (that's the same thing as SMP ops, on ARM64 > SMP ops and CPUidle ops are unified through CPU operations).
I don't agree with that. CPU idle isn't an "ARM thing" at all, it's generic kernel infrastructure. OF is generic kernel infrastructure too.
Yet, we're stuffing _all_ the PSCI CPU idle code into drivers/firmware/psci.c, but then stuffing the PSCI OF data structures into arch/arm. This is utterly _insane_.
There is nothing ARM specific about these CPU idle ops. They don't belong on arch/arm.
NAK on this series (and the move of the PSCI code to drivers/firmware) until people start seeing sense with stuff like this. Having stuff split between arch/arm/ and drivers/ like this is totally crap. It makes code unnecessary complex for no reason what so ever.
Find a solution which doesn't involve leaving _just_ data structures to connect stuff to OF in arch/arm.
-- FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 10.5Mbps down 400kbps up according to speedtest.net.
| |