From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 14:33:57 -0700 From: Matt Porter To: Dan Malek Cc: Tom Rini , linuxppc-dev Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] idle loop changes Message-ID: <20020731143357.C5793@home.com> References: <20020731193200.GD17472@opus.bloom.county> <3D4847D5.9030404@embeddededge.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <3D4847D5.9030404@embeddededge.com>; from dan@embeddededge.com on Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 04:25:57PM -0400 Sender: owner-linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 04:25:57PM -0400, Dan Malek wrote: > > Tom Rini wrote: > > > I'm not totally sure if it's better to do it this way, or to not provide > > a default power_save(), so that if we don't set pm_idle to something, we > > just never call power_save() (as opposed to a call, check for a bit & > > return). Comments? > > I think whether we force everything to have a power_save() function, > even if it is empty, or initialize a pointer and have an indirect call > doesn't make much difference. What does make a difference, is there could > be power save functions that are unique to a board. Some processors have > power save options that can cause a lower frequency clock to be used which > will affect external devices. In such cases, the devices on a board may > need some adjustment when these power save modes are entered/exited. So, some new machdep calls that you can populate on a per board basis? Are you just talking about them being used upon entering/exiting idle? Regards, -- Matt Porter porter@cox.net This is Linux Country. On a quiet night, you can hear Windows reboot. ** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/