On 03/25/2015 09:54 PM, Paul Bolle wrote:
A few nits are all I spotted.
On Wed, 2015-03-25 at 10:07 +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
--- a/drivers/cpuidle/Kconfig.arm
+++ b/drivers/cpuidle/Kconfig.arm
+config ARM_CPUIDLE
+ bool "Generic ARM/ARM64 CPU idle Driver"
+ select DT_IDLE_STATES
+ help
+ Select this to enable generic cpuidle driver for ARM.
+ It provides a generic idle driver whose idle states are configured
+ at run-time through DT nodes. The CPUidle suspend backend is
+ initialized by calling the CPU operations init idle hook
+ provided by architecture code.
Start with a tab instead of 8 spaces, please.
Ok, I will send a fix for that on top of this patch.
--- /dev/null
+++ b/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-arm.c
+#include <linux/cpuidle.h>
+#include <linux/cpumask.h>
+#include <linux/cpu_pm.h>
+#include <linux/kernel.h>
+#include <linux/module.h>
Is this include actually needed? I haven't tried building this without
that include, but I spotted nothing obviously module related in this
file.
+#include <linux/of.h>
+
+#include <asm/cpuidle.h>
+
+#include "dt_idle_states.h"
+static struct cpuidle_driver arm_idle_driver = {
+ .name = "arm_idle",
+ .owner = THIS_MODULE,
Since this can only be built in, THIS_MODULE will (basically) be
equivalent to NULL according to include/linux/export.h. So I suppose
this line can be dropped.
Yeah, THIS_MODULE is present in all drivers. Very likely we can safely
remove it.
+ /*
+ * State at index 0 is standby wfi and considered standard
+ * on all ARM platforms. If in some platforms simple wfi
+ * can't be used as "state 0", DT bindings must be implemented
+ * to work around this issue and allow installing a special
+ * handler for idle state index 0.
+ */
+ .states[0] = {
+ .enter = arm_enter_idle_state,
+ .exit_latency = 1,
+ .target_residency = 1,
+ .power_usage = UINT_MAX,
+ .name = "WFI",
+ .desc = "ARM WFI",
+ }
+};
I did notice that these two nits are already present in
drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-arm64.c. But since this patch is not just moving
that file's content around, you might as well look into those two nits.
We can address the module code removal in a separate patchset as this is
the case for all the drivers.
--
<http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
