From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.lixom.net (lixom.net [66.141.50.11]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 687E7DE089 for ; Fri, 11 Apr 2008 15:20:47 +1000 (EST) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 00:31:36 -0500 From: Olof Johansson To: Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: [PATCH] [v5] Add idle wait support for 44x platforms Message-ID: <20080411053136.GB31810@lixom.net> References: <200804101544.44457.arnd@arndb.de> <1207858131.26428.4.camel@thinkpadL> <200804110218.23912.arnd@arndb.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <200804110218.23912.arnd@arndb.de> Cc: kvm-ppc-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 02:18:22AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Thursday 10 April 2008, Jerone Young wrote: > > Well it could be this simple. But the current code leaves a lot more > > room to add different type waits or spins if need be (if they are ever > > needed ... though none off the top of my head at the moment)...but it > > does allow you to create another wait state for whatever reason a lot > > easier. > > > > So I really don't think this needs to change. Unless everyone really > > feels that it just has to be. > > No, it doesn't need to change, the current patch is entirely correct, > just a little bit more complicated than it needs to be, and I try > not to have code in anticipation of something getting more complicated > in the future, you can always add the complexity at the point where you > need it. That piece of code came across from the platforms/pasemi version, where we for a while had more than two kinds of idle loops (doze/nap/sleep/rvwinkle). Turns out doze does well enough that the others weren't really needed so I never submitted support for the deeper sleep modes. -Olof