Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 23 Jun 2022 14:19:06 +0100 | From | Will Deacon <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/2] arm64: remove generic ARM cpuidle support |
| |
On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 03:07:48PM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote: > On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 01:59:07PM +0200, Michael Walle wrote: > > Am 2022-05-29 20:13, schrieb Michael Walle: > > > Playing with an own PSCI implementation, I've noticed that the > > > cpuidle-arm > > > driver doesn't work on arm64. It doesn't probe because since commit > > > 788961462f34 ("ARM: psci: cpuidle: Enable PSCI CPUidle driver") the > > > arm_cpuidle_init() can only return -EOPNOTSUPP, because the commit > > > removed > > > the cpu_idle_init and cpu_suspend ops. > > > > > > It left me puzzled for quite some time. It seems that the cpuidle-psci > > > is > > > the preferred one and this has been the case for quite some time. The > > > mentioned commit first appeared in v5.4. > > > > > > Remove the ARM64 support for the cpuidle-arm driver, which then let us > > > remove all the supporting arch code. > > > > > > Michael Walle (2): > > > cpuidle: cpuidle-arm: remove arm64 support > > > arm64: cpuidle: remove generic cpuidle support > > > > > > arch/arm64/include/asm/cpu_ops.h | 9 --------- > > > arch/arm64/include/asm/cpuidle.h | 15 --------------- > > > arch/arm64/kernel/cpuidle.c | 29 ----------------------------- > > > drivers/cpuidle/Kconfig.arm | 3 ++- > > > 4 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 54 deletions(-) > > > > Through which tree should this patchset go? I've seen it is marked as > > "Handled Elsewere" in the linux pm patchwork [1]. > > > > Generally based on the changes, it is decided. I can see why Rafael would > have marked so in PM patchwork. Daniel has already acked small change in > CPUidle config file while the bulk is removal of arm64 code. So, it is > better to route it via arm64 tree. > > Will, > > Assuming you will handle v5.20, can you pick this up ?
Yup, on it.
Will
| |