From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <3D486350.8070700@embeddededge.com> Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 18:23:12 -0400 From: Dan Malek MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Mark A. Greer" Cc: Matt Porter , Tom Rini , linuxppc-dev Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] idle loop changes References: <20020731193200.GD17472@opus.bloom.county> <3D4847D5.9030404@embeddededge.com> <20020731143357.C5793@home.com> <3D48569D.30201@embeddededge.com> <3D485B2F.84829A96@mvista.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Sender: owner-linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: Mark A. Greer wrote: > Why not use keep the ppc6xx_pm_idle, etc. as fallbacks (e.g., nothing > special about your board so use generic 6xx one) That's fine, except we aren't using machdep calls. The interaction between the external devices and the processor control may not allow (or we may not desire) using a "standard" processor function. For example, the MPC8xx has four powersave modes and four sleep modes. Only one of the modes is generic and isn't suitable to use if I use one of the other modes that may require external device management. My comment was truly simple :-) Just don't assume the processor powersave modes are suitable for all boards. A board may wish to do something different, so I suggest keeping the power save function initialization local to a board rather than processor architecture. Many of them are likely to be generic and can use the same function, just allow the provision for them to be different at the board level, that's all. Thanks. -- Dan ** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/