From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: cort@fsmlabs.com Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 23:39:21 -0600 To: akuster Cc: Matthew Locke , linuxppc-dev Subject: Re: [RFC/Patch] 4xx idle loop Message-ID: <20020724233921.G5740@cort.fsmlabs.com> References: <3D3E4145.8030500@dslextreme.com> <3D3F04F7.1020005@mvista.com> <3D3F8EC9.7070105@dslextreme.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <3D3F8EC9.7070105@dslextreme.com>; from akuster@dslextreme.com on Wed, Jul 24, 2002 at 10:38:17PM -0700 Sender: owner-linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: There's need for the indirection for this sort of thing. The only reason I created ppc_md was to allow for different machines to run off a single binary but not different chip families. A big #ifdef for the chip-type would work fine since the chip family is known at compile time. The machine type isn't always know which is the reason for ppc_md. } This sounds like a good idea if we could use } if( ppc_md.powersave != NULL) } ppc_md.powersave(); } } If it is determined that calling power_save() which is resides in an } arch/processor specific file then we are talking about many files being } hit. and the current power_save seems to common for many other ppc } platforms other than 4xx & 8xx ** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/