Re: [PATCH] cpuidle/powernv : Add Description for cpuidle state
From: Stewart Smith <hidden>
Date: 2018-05-29 01:39:14
Also in:
linux-pm, lkml
Abhishek Goel [off-list ref] writes:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
@@ -215,7 +216,7 @@ static inline void add_powernv_state(int index, const char *name, u64 psscr_val, u64 psscr_mask) { strlcpy(powernv_states[index].name, name, CPUIDLE_NAME_LEN); - strlcpy(powernv_states[index].desc, name, CPUIDLE_NAME_LEN); + strlcpy(powernv_states[index].desc, desc, CPUIDLE_DESC_LEN);
We should still fall back to using name in the event of desc being null, as not all firmware will expose the descriptions.
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
@@ -311,6 +313,11 @@ static int powernv_add_idle_states(void) pr_warn("cpuidle-powernv: missing ibm,cpu-idle-state-names in DT\n"); goto out; } + if (of_property_read_string_array(power_mgt, + "ibm,cpu-idle-state-descs", descs, dt_idle_states) < 0) { + pr_warn("cpuidle-powernv: missing ibm,cpu-idle-state-descs in DT\n"); + goto out; + }
I don't think pr_warn is appropriate here, as for all current released firmware we don't have that property. I think perhaps just silently continuing on is okay, as we have to keep compatibility with that firmware.
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
--- a/include/linux/cpuidle.h +++ b/include/linux/cpuidle.h@@ -17,7 +17,7 @@ #define CPUIDLE_STATE_MAX 10 #define CPUIDLE_NAME_LEN 16 -#define CPUIDLE_DESC_LEN 32 +#define CPUIDLE_DESC_LEN 60
Do we really get that long? -- Stewart Smith OPAL Architect, IBM.