From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: shawn.guo@freescale.com (Shawn Guo) Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2011 12:54:55 +0800 Subject: [PATCH 14/25] OMAP4: PM: Add CPUX OFF mode support In-Reply-To: References: <1315144466-9395-1-git-send-email-santosh.shilimkar@ti.com> <1315144466-9395-15-git-send-email-santosh.shilimkar@ti.com> <20110909080416.GF31581@S2100-06.ap.freescale.net> <4E69C9CF.6090709@ti.com> <20110909141321.GC32138@S2100-06.ap.freescale.net> <20110909152729.GG32138@S2100-06.ap.freescale.net> <4E6A4605.3050305@ti.com> <20110909233448.GH32138@S2100-06.ap.freescale.net> Message-ID: <20110910045454.GA32640@S2100-06.ap.freescale.net> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 09:08:16AM +0530, Shilimkar, Santosh wrote: > IOn Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 5:04 AM, Shawn Guo wrote: [...] > > Also, IMO, lable "l2x_clean_inv" should be put after the "bne do_WFI". > > Otherwise, my original statement (it seems l2x_clean_inv will be > > called for case "2") stands correct :) > > > It's just a label. All L2 related code and checks for the valid state is > kept under that by purpose. > So for some case, you enter l2x_clean_inv but do not actually clean and invalidate L2. I do not see this label being used anywhere, so you may want to remove it to save the confusion to stupid people like me. Just my opinion. -- Regards, Shawn