From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnd Bergmann Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 00:18:22 +0000 Subject: Re: [kvm-ppc-devel] [PATCH] [v5] Add idle wait support for 44x Message-Id: <200804110218.23912.arnd@arndb.de> List-Id: References: <200804101544.44457.arnd@arndb.de> <1207858131.26428.4.camel@thinkpadL> In-Reply-To: <1207858131.26428.4.camel@thinkpadL> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To: jyoung5@us.ibm.com Cc: kvm-ppc-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org On Thursday 10 April 2008, Jerone Young wrote: > Well it could be this simple. But the current code leaves a lot more > room to add different type waits or spins if need be (if they are ever > needed ... though none off the top of my head at the moment)...but it > does allow you to create another wait state for whatever reason a lot > easier. >=20 > So I really don't think this needs to change. Unless everyone really > feels that it just has to be. No, it doesn't need to change, the current patch is entirely correct, just a little bit more complicated than it needs to be, and I try not to have code in anticipation of something getting more complicated in the future, you can always add the complexity at the point where you need it. > >=20 > > static int __init idle_param(char *p) > > { > > =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0if (!strcmp(modes[i].name, "spin")) > > =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0ppc_md.power_save =3D NULL; > > } > > early_param("idle", idle_param); > >=20 > > if you statically initialize the ppc_md.power_save function to ppc44x_i= dle > > in the platform setup files? >=20 > The idea is to not statically initialize ppc_md.power_save to > ppc44x_idle in each platform setup file. >=20 Why not? Unlike the platform_initcall, it wouldn't cost anything and your current code has the same effect in the end, but in a less obvious way. Arnd <>< ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by the 2008 JavaOne(SM) Conference=20 Don't miss this year's exciting event. There's still time to save $100.=20 Use priority code J8TL2D2.=20 http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;198757673;13503038;p?http://java.sun.com/java= one _______________________________________________ kvm-ppc-devel mailing list kvm-ppc-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-ppc-devel From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de (moutng.kundenserver.de [212.227.126.177]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B4AADDDFF for ; Fri, 11 Apr 2008 10:18:45 +1000 (EST) From: Arnd Bergmann To: jyoung5@us.ibm.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] [v5] Add idle wait support for 44x platforms Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 02:18:22 +0200 References: <200804101544.44457.arnd@arndb.de> <1207858131.26428.4.camel@thinkpadL> In-Reply-To: <1207858131.26428.4.camel@thinkpadL> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Message-Id: <200804110218.23912.arnd@arndb.de> Cc: kvm-ppc-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thursday 10 April 2008, Jerone Young wrote: > Well it could be this simple. But the current code leaves a lot more > room to add different type waits or spins if need be (if they are ever > needed ... though none off the top of my head at the moment)...but it > does allow you to create another wait state for whatever reason a lot > easier. >=20 > So I really don't think this needs to change. Unless everyone really > feels that it just has to be. No, it doesn't need to change, the current patch is entirely correct, just a little bit more complicated than it needs to be, and I try not to have code in anticipation of something getting more complicated in the future, you can always add the complexity at the point where you need it. > >=20 > > static int __init idle_param(char *p) > > { > > =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0if (!strcmp(modes[i].name, "spin")) > > =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0ppc_md.power_save =3D NULL; > > } > > early_param("idle", idle_param); > >=20 > > if you statically initialize the ppc_md.power_save function to ppc44x_i= dle > > in the platform setup files? >=20 > The idea is to not statically initialize ppc_md.power_save to > ppc44x_idle in each platform setup file. >=20 Why not? Unlike the platform_initcall, it wouldn't cost anything and your current code has the same effect in the end, but in a less obvious way. Arnd <><