Re: [PATCH 0/2] arm64: remove generic ARM cpuidle support

[Sudeep Holla]

On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 01:59:07PM +0200, Michael Walle wrote:
> Am 2022-05-29 20:13, schrieb Michael Walle:
> > Playing with an own PSCI implementation, I've noticed that the
> > cpuidle-arm
> > driver doesn't work on arm64. It doesn't probe because since commit
> > 788961462f34 ("ARM: psci: cpuidle: Enable PSCI CPUidle driver") the
> > arm_cpuidle_init() can only return -EOPNOTSUPP, because the commit
> > removed
> > the cpu_idle_init and cpu_suspend ops.
> > 
> > It left me puzzled for quite some time. It seems that the cpuidle-psci
> > is
> > the preferred one and this has been the case for quite some time. The
> > mentioned commit first appeared in v5.4.
> > 
> > Remove the ARM64 support for the cpuidle-arm driver, which then let us
> > remove all the supporting arch code.
> > 
> > Michael Walle (2):
> >   cpuidle: cpuidle-arm: remove arm64 support
> >   arm64: cpuidle: remove generic cpuidle support
> > 
> >  arch/arm64/include/asm/cpu_ops.h |  9 ---------
> >  arch/arm64/include/asm/cpuidle.h | 15 ---------------
> >  arch/arm64/kernel/cpuidle.c      | 29 -----------------------------
> >  drivers/cpuidle/Kconfig.arm      |  3 ++-
> >  4 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 54 deletions(-)
> 
> Through which tree should this patchset go? I've seen it is marked as
> "Handled Elsewere" in the linux pm patchwork [1].
> 

Generally based on the changes, it is decided. I can see why Rafael would
have marked so in PM patchwork. Daniel has already acked small change in
CPUidle config file while the bulk is removal of arm64 code. So, it is
better to route it via arm64 tree.

Will,

Assuming you will handle v5.20, can you pick this up ?

-- 
Regards,
Sudeep