From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <3D4847D5.9030404@embeddededge.com> Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 16:25:57 -0400 From: Dan Malek MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tom Rini Cc: linuxppc-dev Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] idle loop changes References: <20020731193200.GD17472@opus.bloom.county> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Sender: owner-linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: 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. Thanks. -- Dan ** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/