From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: sanjay.rawat@linaro.org (Sanjay Singh Rawat)
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 11:03:05 +0530
Subject: [PATCH 4/8] ARM: vexpress: use generic cpu idle function for wfi
In-Reply-To: <1370617870.4852.23.camel@hornet>
References: <1369665166-13049-1-git-send-email-sanjay.rawat@linaro.org>
 <1369665166-13049-5-git-send-email-sanjay.rawat@linaro.org>
 <1370617870.4852.23.camel@hornet>
Message-ID: <51B6B691.1040305@linaro.org>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

commit: 8553cb67d2318db327071018fc81084cbabccc46 explains that

-sanjay

On Friday 07 June 2013 08:41 PM, Pawel Moll wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-05-27 at 15:32 +0100, Sanjay Singh Rawat wrote:
>> use cpu_do_idle for entering the wfi mode.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Sanjay Singh Rawat <sanjay.rawat@linaro.org>
>> ---
>>   arch/arm/mach-vexpress/hotplug.c |    3 ++-
>>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-vexpress/hotplug.c b/arch/arm/mach-vexpress/hotplug.c
>> index f0ce6b8..b3dffc2 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-vexpress/hotplug.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-vexpress/hotplug.c
>> @@ -60,7 +60,8 @@ static inline void platform_do_lowpower(unsigned int cpu, int *spurious)
>>   	 * code will have already disabled interrupts
>>   	 */
>>   	for (;;) {
>> -		wfi();
>> +		/* enter WFI mode */
>> +		cpu_do_idle();
>>
>>   		if (pen_release == cpu_logical_map(cpu)) {
>>   			/*
>
> I probably don't get the whole picture, but may I ask what is the
> rationale behind this change? As in: why cpu_do_idle() is better?
>
> Pawe?
>
>