From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 17:11:43 -0700 From: Tom Rini To: Dan Malek Cc: Matt Porter , linuxppc-dev Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] idle loop changes Message-ID: <20020801001143.GH17472@opus.bloom.county> References: <20020731193200.GD17472@opus.bloom.county> <3D4847D5.9030404@embeddededge.com> <20020731143357.C5793@home.com> <3D48569D.30201@embeddededge.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <3D48569D.30201@embeddededge.com> Sender: owner-linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: 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/