| Message ID | 20191024151834.17036-1-sudeep.holla@arm.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Not Applicable, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | cpuidle: psci: Align psci_power_state count with idle state count | expand |
On Thu, 24 Oct 2019 at 17:18, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote: > > Instead of allocating 'n-1' states in psci_power_state to manage 'n' > idle states which include "ARM WFI" state, it would be simpler to have > 1:1 mapping between psci_power_state and cpuidle driver states. > > ARM WFI state(i.e. idx == 0) is handled specially in the generic macro > CPU_PM_CPU_IDLE_ENTER_PARAM and hence state[-1] is not possible. However > for sake of code readability, it is better to have 1:1 mapping and not > use [idx - 1] to access psci_power_state corresponding to driver cpuidle > state for idx. > > psci_power_state[0] is default initialised to 0 and is never accessed > while entering WFI state. > > Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> Reported-by: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org> Reviewed-by: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org> > --- > drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-psci.c | 8 +++++--- > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > Hi Ulf, Lorenzo, > > Just to avoid confusion, I thought I will just write this patch as I was > about to make reference to this in my review. As discussed with Lorenzo, I said I was going to adopt his review comments, which means I already have a patch for this locally. Nevermind this time, but I would appreciate if this kind of bikeshedding can been avoided future wise. Kind regards Uffe > > Regards, > Sudeep > > diff --git a/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-psci.c b/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-psci.c > index f3c1a2396f98..361985f52ddd 100644 > --- a/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-psci.c > +++ b/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-psci.c > @@ -30,7 +30,7 @@ static int psci_enter_idle_state(struct cpuidle_device *dev, > u32 *state = __this_cpu_read(psci_power_state); > > return CPU_PM_CPU_IDLE_ENTER_PARAM(psci_cpu_suspend_enter, > - idx, state[idx - 1]); > + idx, state[idx]); > } > > static struct cpuidle_driver psci_idle_driver __initdata = { > @@ -89,12 +89,14 @@ static int __init psci_dt_cpu_init_idle(struct device_node *cpu_node, int cpu) > if (!count) > return -ENODEV; > > + count++; /* Add WFI state too */ > psci_states = kcalloc(count, sizeof(*psci_states), GFP_KERNEL); > if (!psci_states) > return -ENOMEM; > > - for (i = 0; i < count; i++) { > - state_node = of_parse_phandle(cpu_node, "cpu-idle-states", i); > + for (i = 1; i < count; i++) { > + state_node = of_parse_phandle(cpu_node, "cpu-idle-states", > + i - 1); > ret = psci_dt_parse_state_node(state_node, &psci_states[i]); > of_node_put(state_node); > > -- > 2.17.1 >
On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 06:10:09PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote: > On Thu, 24 Oct 2019 at 17:18, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote: > > > > Instead of allocating 'n-1' states in psci_power_state to manage 'n' > > idle states which include "ARM WFI" state, it would be simpler to have > > 1:1 mapping between psci_power_state and cpuidle driver states. > > > > ARM WFI state(i.e. idx == 0) is handled specially in the generic macro > > CPU_PM_CPU_IDLE_ENTER_PARAM and hence state[-1] is not possible. However > > for sake of code readability, it is better to have 1:1 mapping and not > > use [idx - 1] to access psci_power_state corresponding to driver cpuidle > > state for idx. > > > > psci_power_state[0] is default initialised to 0 and is never accessed > > while entering WFI state. > > > > Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> > > Reported-by: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org> > Reviewed-by: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org> > > > --- > > drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-psci.c | 8 +++++--- > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > Hi Ulf, Lorenzo, > > > > Just to avoid confusion, I thought I will just write this patch as I was > > about to make reference to this in my review. > > As discussed with Lorenzo, I said I was going to adopt his review > comments, which means I already have a patch for this locally. > > Nevermind this time, but I would appreciate if this kind of > bikeshedding can been avoided future wise. > That's one of the reason I just wrote the patch as I felt describing it it words was difficult compared to patch :). Sorry if you felt this was bikeshedding. -- Regards, Sudeep
diff --git a/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-psci.c b/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-psci.c index f3c1a2396f98..361985f52ddd 100644 --- a/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-psci.c +++ b/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-psci.c @@ -30,7 +30,7 @@ static int psci_enter_idle_state(struct cpuidle_device *dev, u32 *state = __this_cpu_read(psci_power_state); return CPU_PM_CPU_IDLE_ENTER_PARAM(psci_cpu_suspend_enter, - idx, state[idx - 1]); + idx, state[idx]); } static struct cpuidle_driver psci_idle_driver __initdata = { @@ -89,12 +89,14 @@ static int __init psci_dt_cpu_init_idle(struct device_node *cpu_node, int cpu) if (!count) return -ENODEV; + count++; /* Add WFI state too */ psci_states = kcalloc(count, sizeof(*psci_states), GFP_KERNEL); if (!psci_states) return -ENOMEM; - for (i = 0; i < count; i++) { - state_node = of_parse_phandle(cpu_node, "cpu-idle-states", i); + for (i = 1; i < count; i++) { + state_node = of_parse_phandle(cpu_node, "cpu-idle-states", + i - 1); ret = psci_dt_parse_state_node(state_node, &psci_states[i]); of_node_put(state_node);
Instead of allocating 'n-1' states in psci_power_state to manage 'n' idle states which include "ARM WFI" state, it would be simpler to have 1:1 mapping between psci_power_state and cpuidle driver states. ARM WFI state(i.e. idx == 0) is handled specially in the generic macro CPU_PM_CPU_IDLE_ENTER_PARAM and hence state[-1] is not possible. However for sake of code readability, it is better to have 1:1 mapping and not use [idx - 1] to access psci_power_state corresponding to driver cpuidle state for idx. psci_power_state[0] is default initialised to 0 and is never accessed while entering WFI state. Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> --- drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-psci.c | 8 +++++--- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) Hi Ulf, Lorenzo, Just to avoid confusion, I thought I will just write this patch as I was about to make reference to this in my review. Regards, Sudeep -- 2.17.1