From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: mjg59@srcf.ucam.org (Matthew Garrett) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 17:02:23 +0000 Subject: [RFC part1 PATCH 3/7] ACPI / processor_core: Rework _PDC related stuff to make it more arch-independent In-Reply-To: <20131203165140.24a05540@alan.etchedpixels.co.uk> References: <1386088611-2801-1-git-send-email-hanjun.guo@linaro.org> <1386088611-2801-4-git-send-email-hanjun.guo@linaro.org> <20131203165140.24a05540@alan.etchedpixels.co.uk> Message-ID: <20131203170223.GA14624@srcf.ucam.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 04:51:40PM +0000, One Thousand Gnomes wrote: > On Wed, 4 Dec 2013 00:36:47 +0800 > Hanjun Guo wrote: > > > _PDC related stuff in processor_core.c is little bit X86/IA64 dependent, > > rework the code to make it more arch-independent. > > > > The return value of acpi_processor_eval_pdc() should be 'acpi_status' but > > defined as 'int', fix it too. > > Why not just define boot_options_idle_override as well. Then you can > leave the code unchanged. Also more importantly you can have override > values for ARM when it turns out you need those too and the logic will be > the same for both processor families The arguments to _PDC are architecture specific, so there do need to be code changes here. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59 at srcf.ucam.org