Re: [PATCH v3 0/5] ACPI / processor_idle: Add ACPI v6.0 LPI support

[Sudeep Holla]

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