Re: [PATCH 1/2] ARM: cpuidle: fix !cpuidle_ops[cpu].init case during init

[Daniel Lezcano]

On 03/30/2016 10:17 AM, Jisheng Zhang wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2016 10:09:12 +0200 Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>
> > On 03/30/2016 09:16 AM, Jisheng Zhang wrote:
> > > Hi Daniel,
> >
> > [ ... ]
> >
> > Added Lorenzo and Catalin.
> >
> > > > Hi Jisheng,
> > > >
> > > > this should be handled in the arm_cpuidle_read_ops function.
> > >
> > > Thanks for reviewing. After some consideration, I think this patch isn't correct
> > > There may be platforms which doesn't need the init member at all, although
> > > currently I don't see such platforms in mainline, So I'll drop this patch
> > > and send out one v2 only does the optimization.
> >
> > There is an inconsistency between ARM and ARM64. The 'cpu_get_ops', the
> > arm_cpuidle_read_ops from the ARM64 side, returns -EOPNOTSUPP when the
> > init function is not there for cpuidle.
>
> yes.
> arm64's arm_cpuidle_init() returns -EOPNOTSUPP if init callback isn't defined
>
> > I don't think it is a problem, but as ARM/ARM64 are sharing the same
> > cpuidle-arm.c driver it would make sense to unify the behavior between
> > both archs.
>
> yes, agree with you. From "unify" point of view, could I move back the suspend
> callback check and init callback check into arm_cpuidle_init() for arm as V1 does?

Why ? To be consistent with ARM64 ?


--
 <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org â Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog