Re: [RFC/PATCH] idle loop changes

[Tom Rini <trini@kernel.crashing.org>]

On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 05:29:01PM -0400, Dan Malek wrote:
> Matt Porter wrote:
>
> >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?
>
> I was just thinking the power_save() function could be unique to a
> board.  It has to be something combined with the power save mode
> chosen on the chip, so machdep calls may not be appropriate.  We are
> using names like ppc6xx_pm_idle, ppc4xx, ppc8xx, when it could be
> my_custom_board_pm_idle......Just don't assume one type of chip will
> use the same function on different boards.  When the idle/power save
> function is chosen, it should probably be done during board setup,
> not processor set up.

Right.  ppc6xx_pm_idle happens to work in most cases on all of the 6xx
boards, but once this gets in there is nothing stopping fooboard from
overriding this in platform_init().

The whole reason behind these changes is that the current power_save()
is dangerous on 4xx, and with the thought that maybe 8xx (or 405LP)
would need to do something much different.

--
Tom Rini (TR1265)
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/

** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/