On Wed, 30 Mar 2016 10:41:09 +0200 Daniel Lezcano wrote: > 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 ?
Yes, that's my intention.
