Re: [PATCH v5 1/5] ACPI / processor_idle: introduce ACPI_PROCESSOR_CSTATE

From: Sudeep Holla
Date: Wed May 11 2016 - 12:57:37 EST




On 11/05/16 17:23, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 5:37 PM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@xxxxxxx> wrote:
ACPI 6.0 adds a new method to specify the CPU idle states(C-states)
called Low Power Idle(LPI) states. Since new architectures like ARM64
use only LPIs, introduce ACPI_PROCESSOR_CSTATE to encapsulate all the
code supporting the old style C-states(_CST).

This patch will help to extend the processor_idle module to support
LPI.

Cc: x86@xxxxxxxxxx
Cc: linux-ia64@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@xxxxxxx>
---
arch/ia64/Kconfig | 1 +
arch/x86/Kconfig | 1 +
drivers/acpi/Kconfig | 4 +++
drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c | 80 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------
include/acpi/processor.h | 2 +-
5 files changed, 60 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/ia64/Kconfig b/arch/ia64/Kconfig
index b534ebab36ea..e820670d7243 100644
--- a/arch/ia64/Kconfig
+++ b/arch/ia64/Kconfig
@@ -15,6 +15,7 @@ config IA64
select ARCH_MIGHT_HAVE_PC_SERIO
select PCI if (!IA64_HP_SIM)
select ACPI if (!IA64_HP_SIM)
+ select ACPI_PROCESSOR_CSTATE if ACPI

You don't need this ->

select ACPI_SYSTEM_POWER_STATES_SUPPORT if ACPI
select ARCH_MIGHT_HAVE_ACPI_PDC if ACPI
select HAVE_UNSTABLE_SCHED_CLOCK
diff --git a/arch/x86/Kconfig b/arch/x86/Kconfig
index 2dc18605831f..cb3e14757c9c 100644
--- a/arch/x86/Kconfig
+++ b/arch/x86/Kconfig
@@ -18,6 +18,7 @@ config X86_64
config X86
def_bool y
select ACPI_LEGACY_TABLES_LOOKUP if ACPI
+ select ACPI_PROCESSOR_CSTATE if ACPI
select ACPI_SYSTEM_POWER_STATES_SUPPORT if ACPI
select ANON_INODES
select ARCH_CLOCKSOURCE_DATA
diff --git a/drivers/acpi/Kconfig b/drivers/acpi/Kconfig
index b7e2e776397d..093bfcc4f9c3 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/Kconfig
+++ b/drivers/acpi/Kconfig
@@ -213,6 +213,10 @@ config ACPI_CPU_FREQ_PSS
bool
select THERMAL

+config ACPI_PROCESSOR_CSTATE
+ bool

-> if you do "def_bool y" here.


I agree and I did exactly the same, but then was not sure on your
preference. So dropped it :)

--
Regards,
Sudeep