[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130211161125.GM17833@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 16:11:25 +0000
From: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
To: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Cc: Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/16] ARM idle: delete pm_idle
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 04:02:30PM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 05:58:13AM +0000, Len Brown wrote:
> > pm_idle() on ARM was a synonym for default_idle(),
> > so simply invoke default_idle() directly.
>
> The clean-up looks fine as we already have an arm_pm_idle but longer
> term I was thinking about having a common declaration similar to
> pm_power_off that code under drivers/power/(reset/) can override (and
> such driver may be shared by multiple architectures). OTOH, if you get
> rid of the generic linux/pm.h declaration architectures can use a common
> pm_idle name and type (though I think having it in the common header
> would be better). For ARM this would mean s/arm_pm_idle/pm_idle/ on top
> if your patch.
pm_idle() was that common declaration - but it had the side effect that
it was defined to be called with interrupts disabled, but return with
interrupts enabled.
arm_pm_idle() "fixed" that weirdness such that it's now expected to
return with IRQs in the same state that it was called.
pm_power_off() is a cross-arch hook already.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists