[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130212193609.GA15694@merkur.ravnborg.org>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 20:36:09 +0100
From: Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>
To: Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>, linux-next@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
sparclinux@...r.kernel.org,
Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Should SPARC use cpuidle?
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 01:03:04PM -0500, Len Brown wrote:
>
> >> Can you please move the definition of sparc_idle to processor_32.h
> >> It is sparc32 specific - and then we do not need the __ASSEMBLY__ guards
> >> as the sparc32 variant are not used from assembler.
> >
> > sure, let me know if attached works.
>
> ugh, not accustomed to sending patches via thunderbird.
> hopefully this attachment works...
>
> >From 358ca5d7e02c4559ad3fbf8135421e4a3753e979 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>
> Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2013 23:27:26 -0500
> Subject: [PATCH] sparc idle: rename pm_idle to sparc_idle
> Reply-To: Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
> Organization: Intel Open Source Technology Center
>
> (pm_idle)() is being removed from linux/pm.h
> because Linux does not have such a cross-architecture concept.
>
> sparc uses an idle function pointer in its architecture
> specific code. So we re-name sparc use of pm_idle to sparc_idle.
>
> Maybe some day, SPARC will cut over to cpuidle...
>
> Signed-off-by: Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>
> Acked-by: David S. Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Build tested - OK.
Acked-by: Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>
--
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