On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 10:26 AM, Jean Pihet [off-list ref] wrote:

On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 5:47 AM, Robert Lee [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Use core cpuidle timekeeping and irqen wrapper and remove that
handling from this code.

Signed-off-by: Robert Lee <redacted>
---
?arch/arm/mach-omap2/cpuidle34xx.c | ? 43 +++++++++++++++---------------------
?1 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/cpuidle34xx.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/cpuidle34xx.c
index 464cffd..1f6123f 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/cpuidle34xx.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/cpuidle34xx.c

...

quoted

?/**
+ * omap3_enter_idle - Programs OMAP3 to enter the specified state
+ * @dev: cpuidle device
+ * @drv: cpuidle driver
+ * @index: the index of state to be entered
+ *
+ * Called from the CPUidle framework to program the device to the
+ * specified target state selected by the governor.
+ */
+static int omap3_enter_idle(struct cpuidle_device *dev,
+ ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? struct cpuidle_driver *drv,
+ ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? int index)
+{
+ ? ? ? return cpuidle_wrap_enter(dev, drv, index, __omap3_enter_idle);

Is it the intention to call cpuidle_wrap_enter from the non-common
code? Could the driver set en_core_tk_irqen to 1 and so let the core
call the idle function? Is it to have the time measurement code closer
to the low level idle code in ?__omap3_enter_idle?

Yes, Yes, and Yes.

quoted

+}
+
+/**
?* next_valid_state - Find next valid C-state
?* @dev: cpuidle device
?* @drv: cpuidle driver

@@ -295,6 +287,7 @@ static int omap3_enter_idle_bm(struct cpuidle_device *dev,

? ? ? ?new_state_idx = next_valid_state(dev, drv, index);

?select_state:
+

Stray change

Oops, thanks.

quoted

? ? ? ?ret = omap3_enter_idle(dev, drv, new_state_idx);

? ? ? ?/* Restore original PER state if it was modified */
--
1.7.1

Regards,
Jean