[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150313182102.GS30671@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 18:21:03 +0000
From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
To: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
Cc: lorenzo.pieralisi@....com, rjw@...ysocki.net,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, arnd@...db.de,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
lina.iyer@...aro.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] ARM64: cpuidle: Replace cpu_suspend by the common
ARM/ARM64 function
On Tue, Mar 03, 2015 at 01:29:34PM +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> Call the common ARM/ARM64 'arm_cpuidle_suspend' instead of cpu_suspend function
> which is specific to ARM64.
>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
> ---
> drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-arm64.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-arm64.c b/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-arm64.c
> index 39a2c62..0cea244 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-arm64.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-arm64.c
> @@ -49,7 +49,7 @@ static int arm64_enter_idle_state(struct cpuidle_device *dev,
> * call the CPU ops suspend protocol with idle index as a
> * parameter.
> */
> - ret = cpu_suspend(idx);
> + arm_cpuidle_suspend(idx);
Nitpick: why don't we just rename the arm one cpuidle_suspend()?
--
Catalin
--
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