From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 13:41:49 -0700 From: Tom Rini To: Dan Malek Cc: linuxppc-dev Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] idle loop changes Message-ID: <20020731204149.GF17472@opus.bloom.county> References: <20020731193200.GD17472@opus.bloom.county> <3D4847D5.9030404@embeddededge.com> <20020731203810.GE17472@opus.bloom.county> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20020731203810.GE17472@opus.bloom.county> Sender: owner-linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 01:38:10PM -0700, Tom Rini wrote: > > 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. > > Well, this gets us part of the way there. This allows for the > power_save() functionalility to be totally overridden. And in the case of CONFIG_6xx, if the assignment is moved above the call to platform_init(), it's even easier to override, if needed, so I've made that change locally. -- Tom Rini (TR1265) http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/ ** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/