From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 13:38:10 -0700 From: Tom Rini To: Dan Malek Cc: linuxppc-dev Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] idle loop changes Message-ID: <20020731203810.GE17472@opus.bloom.county> References: <20020731193200.GD17472@opus.bloom.county> <3D4847D5.9030404@embeddededge.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <3D4847D5.9030404@embeddededge.com> Sender: owner-linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 04:25:57PM -0400, Dan Malek wrote: > Tom Rini wrote: > > >I'm not totally sure if it's better to do it this way, or to not provide > >a default power_save(), so that if we don't set pm_idle to something, we > >just never call power_save() (as opposed to a call, check for a bit & > >return). Comments? > > I think whether we force everything to have a power_save() function, > even if it is empty, or initialize a pointer and have an indirect call > doesn't make much difference. What does make a difference, is there could > be power save functions that are unique to a board. Some processors have > power save options that can cause a lower frequency clock to be used which > will affect external devices. In such cases, the devices on a board may > need some adjustment when these power save modes are entered/exited. Well, this gets us part of the way there. This allows for the power_save() functionalility to be totally overridden. For things such as modifiying the clock, which may require additional device changes, I think that falls in as another problem, but this should allow for that problem to be taken care of. -- Tom Rini (TR1265) http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/ ** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/