From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
To: Cort Dougan <cort@fsmlabs.com>, Matthew Locke <mlocke@mvista.com>
Cc: akuster <akuster@dslextreme.com>,
linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC/Patch] 4xx idle loop
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 18:20:26 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20020725162026.19919@192.168.4.1> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20020725105336.F2276@host110.fsmlabs.com>
>
>I can only think of three ifdef's that would be necessary now but it could
>grow. If the #ifdef snarl is unattractive in idle.c it's easy enough to
>move it to chipfamily-specific headers so that idle.c just needs to call
>arch_idle() to enter an idle state.
>
>The function pointer isn't desirable. What the correct strategy for power
>saving is known at compile time so there shouldn't be a function pointer
>dereference. How the #ifdef's are done doesn't really matter as long as
>the inefficiency of a function pointer is avoided.
Well, while I tend to agree with you on this, experience proved that
slightly abusing the ppc_md. indirection somewhat helped make the
code cleaner (read: more self-contained, less cruft, ...)
Also, in this specific case, we might well want to have an machine
specific power saving feature: I've had various tweaks in mind for
powermac laptops that I never ended up implementing...
ben.
** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-07-25 16:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-07-24 5:55 [RFC/Patch] 4xx idle loop akuster
2002-07-24 19:50 ` Matthew Locke
2002-07-25 5:38 ` akuster
2002-07-25 5:39 ` cort
2002-07-25 6:54 ` cort
2002-07-25 16:51 ` Matthew Locke
2002-07-25 16:53 ` Cort Dougan
2002-07-25 16:20 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt [this message]
2002-07-25 17:55 ` Cort Dougan
2002-07-25 18:04 ` Todd Poynor
2002-07-25 19:20 ` Dan Malek
2002-07-27 16:30 ` akuster
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20020725162026.19919@192.168.4.1 \
--to=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=akuster@dslextreme.com \
--cc=cort@fsmlabs.com \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org \
--cc=mlocke@mvista.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).