Re: [PATCH v8 0/6] ACPI / processor_idle: Add ACPI v6.0 LPI support

[Sudeep Holla]

On 08/07/16 15:43, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 12:04:40PM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> > On 07/07/16 22:02, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 7:10 PM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@xxxxxxx> 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.
> > > >
> > > > v7[7]->v8:
> > > >          - Replaced HAVE_GENERIC_CPUIDLE_ENTER with CPU_IDLE_ENTER_WRAPPED
> > > >            macro, which is more cleaner and definately less confusing :)
> > > >            (Thanks to Rafael for the suggestion)
> > >
> > > Patches [3-6/6] definitely look a lot cleaner to me now. :-)
> > >
> > > That said, the name of the macro I suggested was just an example, so
> > > if people don't like this one, it'd be fine to change it as far as I'm
> > > concerned.
> >
> > I can think of addition to indicate it's pm notifiers wrapper.
> > i.e. CPU_IDLE_ENTER_PM_NOTIFIERS_WRAPPED. Is it too long ? I am happy
> > with the way it is too.
>
> CPU_PM_CPU_IDLE_ENTER() ? Anyway, that's really not a problem IMO,
> it makes sense to at least mention CPU PM in it given that's what
> the CPUIDLE enter function is wrapped within.

Looks even better IMO, Rafael if you have no objection, I will change to
CPU_PM_CPU_IDLE_ENTER ?

--
Regards,
Sudeep