From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: catalin.marinas@arm.com (Catalin Marinas) Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 18:21:03 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 3/6] ARM64: cpuidle: Replace cpu_suspend by the common ARM/ARM64 function In-Reply-To: <1425385777-14766-4-git-send-email-daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> References: <1425385777-14766-1-git-send-email-daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> <1425385777-14766-4-git-send-email-daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> Message-ID: <20150313182102.GS30671@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Tue, Mar 03, 2015 at 01:29:34PM +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > Call the common ARM/ARM64 'arm_cpuidle_suspend' instead of cpu_suspend function > which is specific to ARM64. > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano > --- > drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-arm64.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-arm64.c b/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-arm64.c > index 39a2c62..0cea244 100644 > --- a/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-arm64.c > +++ b/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-arm64.c > @@ -49,7 +49,7 @@ static int arm64_enter_idle_state(struct cpuidle_device *dev, > * call the CPU ops suspend protocol with idle index as a > * parameter. > */ > - ret = cpu_suspend(idx); > + arm_cpuidle_suspend(idx); Nitpick: why don't we just rename the arm one cpuidle_suspend()? -- Catalin