> > Yes, psci_domain_idle_(enter|exit) are not meant to replace cpu_idle nor a > > variant of it. It's new and different events that provide finer=grained > > info.
> I mentioned it because it means it doesn't benefit from cpu_idle tooling > directly, which is slightly odd, but fine with me. I might not fully understand your comments. Do you mean that even mentioning cpu_idle in the commit message does not feel right to you, or utilizing cpu_idle by exposing the determined state instead of adding new trace events is the right direction?
