From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from ch1outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (ch1ehsobe003.messaging.microsoft.com [216.32.181.183]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.global.frontbridge.com", Issuer "MSIT Machine Auth CA 2" (not verified)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9B9382C007C for ; Thu, 4 Jul 2013 01:13:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail98-ch1 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail98-ch1-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77B84A016A for ; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 15:13:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from CH1EHSMHS043.bigfish.com (snatpool1.int.messaging.microsoft.com [10.43.68.253]) by mail98-ch1.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEBE63C05DE for ; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 15:13:19 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <51D43F8A.7060008@freescale.com> Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2013 18:13:14 +0300 From: Tudor Laurentiu MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Scott Wood Subject: Re: [PATCH][v2] powerpc/85xx: Move ePAPR paravirt initialization earlier References: <1372769189-17864-1-git-send-email-Laurentiu.Tudor@freescale.com> <1372787740.8183.113@snotra> <51D41937.3000509@freescale.com> <1372863166.8183.129@snotra> In-Reply-To: <1372863166.8183.129@snotra> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 07/03/2013 05:52 PM, Scott Wood wrote: > On 07/03/2013 07:29:43 AM, Tudor Laurentiu wrote: >> On 07/02/2013 08:55 PM, Scott Wood wrote: >>> On 07/02/2013 07:46:29 AM, Laurentiu Tudor wrote: >>>> - insts = of_get_property(hyper_node, "hcall-instructions", &len); >>>> - if (!insts) >>>> - return -ENODEV; >>>> +#if !defined(CONFIG_64BIT) || defined(CONFIG_PPC_BOOK3E_64) >>>> + if (of_get_flat_dt_prop(node, "has-idle", NULL)) >>>> + ppc_md.power_save = epapr_ev_idle; >>>> +#endif >>> >>> Why are you doing this before processing hcall-instructions? >>> >> >> Nothing of importance. The code seemed more clear to me. > > It seems wrong to expose epapr_ev_idle to ppc_md before the hcall has > been patched in, even if you don't expect to actually go idle at this > point. > Ah, now I understand your concerns. I've submitted a [v3] restoring the original ordering. --- Best Regards, Laurentiu