From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: daniel.lezcano@linaro.org (Daniel Lezcano) Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 22:22:37 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 3/6] ARM64: cpuidle: Replace cpu_suspend by the common ARM/ARM64 function In-Reply-To: <20150313182102.GS30671@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> References: <1425385777-14766-1-git-send-email-daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> <1425385777-14766-4-git-send-email-daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> <20150313182102.GS30671@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> Message-ID: <5503551D.2020202@linaro.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 03/13/2015 07:21 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote: > 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()? I don't have a strong opinion on that. Actually, the cpuidle_ prefix is used by the arch agnostic code in drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c. If Rafael agrees on changing it to this function name, I am ok also. -- Linaro.org ? Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog