From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <3D402C79.5020808@mvista.com> Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 09:51:05 -0700 From: Matthew Locke MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cort@fsmlabs.com Cc: akuster , linuxppc-dev Subject: Re: [RFC/Patch] 4xx idle loop References: <3D3E4145.8030500@dslextreme.com> <3D3F04F7.1020005@mvista.com> <3D3F8EC9.7070105@dslextreme.com> <20020724233921.G5740@cort.fsmlabs.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Sender: owner-linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: cort@fsmlabs.com wrote: >There's need for the indirection for this sort of thing. The only reason >I created ppc_md was to allow for different machines to run off a single >binary but not different chip families. > >A big #ifdef for the chip-type would work fine since the chip family is >known at compile time. The machine type isn't always know which is the >reason for ppc_md. > I thought one of the linuxppc desgin goals was to keep the ifdefs to a minimum. I can see idle.c growing quite large and full of #ifdefs if we do it that way. Rather than using ppc_md, make power_save an abstraction similar to platform_init. > > >} This sounds like a good idea if we could use >} if( ppc_md.powersave != NULL) >} ppc_md.powersave(); >} >} If it is determined that calling power_save() which is resides in an >} arch/processor specific file then we are talking about many files being >} hit. and the current power_save seems to common for many other ppc >} platforms other than 4xx & 8xx > ** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/