[PATCHv1] ARM: imx: Add support for low power suspend on MX51.

[u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de (Uwe Kleine-König)]

On Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 01:45:51PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 01:46:58PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-K?nig wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 11:52:42AM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 10:52:38PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-K?nig wrote:
> > > > > +static int __init mx5_pm_init(void)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > +	if (cpu_is_mx51())
> > > > > +		suspend_set_ops(&mx5_suspend_ops);
> > > > I'd prefer to have that called by imx51_init_early.
> > > 
> > > This function name looks fine.  As we now have an init_early in the
> > > arch hooks, let's keep things called foo_init_early() to that use
> > > and not start using 'early' for stuff used from initcalls.
> > > 
> > > Renaming this is a recipe for causing confusion and having grep hit
> > > false positives.  Please leave it as is.
> > It seems you and Thomas both didn't notice the "by" in my sentence.
> > Or maybe it's not proper English? The thing I wanted to express is that
> > instead of introducing another initcall I prefer that imx51_init_early
> > calls mx5_pm_init instead. The name mx5_pm_init is fine for me, though
> > imx51_pm_init would still be better.
> 
> Is there a reason to set this really really early?  What's that reason
> exactly?
No there is no reason. If there were a imx51_init this would be the
right place. Maybe it's time to implement it.
 
Best regards
Uwe

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-K?nig            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |