On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 09:44:39PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:

On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 04:55:45PM +0000, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Jan 05, 2016 at 01:34:47PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:

quoted

That immediately worries me, because it bypasses the CPU dependencies
for ARM_CPU_SUSPEND implicitly applied via ARCH_SUSPEND_POSSIBLE.  I'd
prefer instead:

config ARM_PSCI_CPU_IDLE
	def_bool ARM_PSCI_FW && CPU_IDLE && (!ARM || ARM_CPU_SUSPEND)

If you are not against it, I could make ARM_PSCI select ARM_CPU_SUSPEND,
the CPU dependency would be taken into account (ie CPU_V7) and this
would mirror what's done for the eg BL_SWITCHER.

If you're proposing to always build the code in psci.c when ARM_PSCI_FW
is enabled, I'd rather do this:

config ARM_CPU_SUSPEND
        def_bool PM_SLEEP || BL_SWITCHER || ARM_PSCI_FW
	depends on ARCH_SUSPEND_POSSIBLE

rather than have stuff select this option.

Agreed, I will do that with two patches (ie one to update the
BL_SWITCHER config entry). It has the side effect of pulling in
ARM_CPU_SUSPEND even if !SUSPEND && !CPU_IDLE when ARM_PSCI
is selected but I do not think that's a real issue, to be confirmed.

Still, some ARM CPUidle drivers will have to select ARM_CPU_SUSPEND
on a case by case basis, I do not know how we can improve that, but
that's not related to this patch series per-se.

Thanks,
Lorenzo