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? Thanks for reviewing, Jisheng
