Message-id: <52FDF32A.1040809@samsung.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 11:42:50 +0100
From: Tomasz Figa <t.figa@samsung.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/24.1.1
MIME-version: 1.0
To: Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@nvidia.com>,
        Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org>,
        Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>,
        Russell King <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        "linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org" <linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "gnurou@gmail.com" <gnurou@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/6] ARM: firmware: add prepare_idle() operation
References: <1391747706-1847-1-git-send-email-acourbot@nvidia.com>
 <1391747706-1847-5-git-send-email-acourbot@nvidia.com>
 <52FCA5FC.80504@samsung.com> <52FDA6B4.6070404@nvidia.com>
In-reply-to: <52FDA6B4.6070404@nvidia.com>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org

On 14.02.2014 06:16, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
> On 02/13/2014 08:01 PM, Tomasz Figa wrote:
>> Hi Alexandre,
>>
>> On 07.02.2014 05:35, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
>>> Some firmwares do not put the CPU into idle mode themselves, but still
>>> need to be informed that the CPU is about to enter idle mode before this
>>> happens. Add a prepare_idle() operation to the firmware_ops structure to
>>> handle such cases.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@nvidia.com>
>>> ---
>>>    arch/arm/include/asm/firmware.h | 4 ++++
>>>    1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>>
>> I wonder if .do_idle() couldn't simply return an appropriate error code
>> to let the upper layer know that it should proceed with normal CPU idle
>> activation, while still letting the firmware know that the CPU is going
>> to idle.
>
> In our particular case I agree it would be enough to use do_idle() to
> let the firmware know about the operation and have it return -ENOSYS so
> the kernel actually performs it. I'm afraid this might not fulfill all
> needs though (e.g. one can imagine a firmware where the OS needs to take
> action between the notification and the actual shutdown), and as Stephen
> pointed out that would make the name of the function ambiguous at best.
> I'd rather keep it the current way for clarity.
>

OK. I'm not strongly against this, just wanted some more thought on 
this, so please move on.

Best regards,
Tomasz
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/