Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 12 Jun 2019 09:14:16 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To:     Leonard Crestez <leonard.crestez@nxp.com>
cc:     Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>, Abel Vesa <abel.vesa@nxp.com>,
        Lucas Stach <l.stach@pengutronix.de>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        Abel Vesa <abelvesa@gmail.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Shawn Guo <shawnguo@kernel.org>,
        Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>,
        Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@pengutronix.de>,
        Fabio Estevam <festevam@gmail.com>,
        Jacky Bai <ping.bai@nxp.com>,
        Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>,
        dl-linux-imx <linux-imx@nxp.com>,
        "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Carlo Caione <ccaione@baylibre.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/2] Add workaround for core wake-up on IPI for i.MX8MQ
In-Reply-To: <VI1PR04MB5055A808A08A1C47784E4332EE130@VI1PR04MB5055.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1906120913090.2214@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
References: <20190610121346.15779-1-abel.vesa@nxp.com> <20190610131921.GB14647@lakrids.cambridge.arm.com> <20190610132910.srd4j2gtidjeppdx@fsr-ub1664-175> <6f1052ea-623a-b2e8-9aa8-22aef5fab4ca@arm.com> <20190610135514.xd5myavjsloos2y3@fsr-ub1664-175>
 <7b86aa90-6d64-589c-f11e-d2ee6ab3fd54@arm.com> <VI1PR04MB5055A808A08A1C47784E4332EE130@VI1PR04MB5055.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (DEB 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 10 Jun 2019, Leonard Crestez wrote:
> On 6/10/2019 5:08 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > Nobody is talking about performance here. It is strictly about
> > correctness, and what I read about this system is that it cannot
> > reliably use cpuidle.
> My argument was that it's fine if PPIs and LPIs are broken as long as 
> they're not used:
> 
>   * PPIs are only used for local timer which is not used for wakeup.

Huch? The timer has to bring the CPU out of idle as any other interrupt. 

Thanks,

	tglx