Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 0/5] ACPI / processor_idle: Add ACPI v6.0 LPI support | From | Sudeep Holla <> | Date | Wed, 17 Feb 2016 11:37:51 +0000 |
| |
On 16/02/16 20:08, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Wednesday, December 02, 2015 02:10:41 PM Sudeep Holla wrote: >> ACPI 6.0 introduced LPI(Low Power Idle) states that provides an alternate >> method to describe processor idle states. It extends the specification >> to allow the expression of idle states like C-states selectable by the >> OSPM when a processor goes idle, but may affect more than one processor, >> and may affect other system components. >> >> LPI extensions leverages the processor container device(again introduced >> in ACPI 6.0) allowing to express which parts of the system are affected >> by a given LPI state. It defines the local power states for each node >> in a hierarchical processor topology. The OSPM can use _LPI object to >> select a local power state for each level of processor hierarchy in the >> system. They used to produce a composite power state request that is >> presented to the platform by the OSPM. >> >> Since multiple processors affect the idle state for any non-leaf hierarchy >> node, coordination of idle state requests between the processors is >> required. ACPI supports two different coordination schemes: Platform >> coordinated and OS initiated. >> >> This series aims at providing basic and initial support for platform >> coordinated LPI states. >> >> v2[2]->v3: >> - rebased against v4.4-rc3 >> - fixed couple of issues reported by Prashanth and review comments >> from Ashwin >> >> v1[1]->v2[2]: >> - Fixed support for ACPI0010 processor container >> - moved sleep state code out of processor_idle >> >> Note the ARM64 specific changes are not part of this series as it's still >> WIP and there are other consolidation happening in there. For reference >> and testing, I have pushed a branch[3] > > Sorry for the slow response here. >
No problem, I saw you were quite busy with cpufreq timers past couple of weeks so didn't bother you.
> It doesn't look too bad overall, but there are some things in it I'd like to > be done differenty. Please see comments on the individual patches. >
OK, thanks for the review, will look at them.
-- Regards, Sudeep
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |