From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from az33egw02.freescale.net (az33egw02.freescale.net [192.88.158.103]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "az33egw02.freescale.net", Issuer "Thawte Premium Server CA" (verified OK)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C1D4DDE03 for ; Wed, 12 Sep 2007 07:33:54 +1000 (EST) Message-ID: <46E70991.3060208@freescale.com> Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 16:33:05 -0500 From: Scott Wood MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Paul Mackerras Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] Implement arch disable/enable irq hooks. References: <20070905220607.GA11330@ld0162-tx32.am.freescale.net> <18151.1452.702936.394284@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <18151.1452.702936.394284@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Paul Mackerras wrote: > It might be better to use hard_irq_disable rather than > local_irq_disable here, since I think we will need that on 64-bit (and > on 32-bit if we ever do lazy irq disabling there). OK. >> +/* Overrides the weak version in kernel/power/main.c */ >> +void arch_suspend_disable_irqs(void) >> +{ >> + if (ppc_md.suspend_disable_irqs) >> + ppc_md.suspend_disable_irqs(); >> + else >> + generic_suspend_disable_irqs(); > > Any particular reason why we need a ppc_md hook here? Do we expect > some platform to need to do something different? Not that I know the details of, but others requested it. -Scott