Re: [PATCH 58/76] idle, x86: Allow off-lined CPU to enter deeper C states

[Tony Luck]

On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 3:14 AM, Len Brown <lenb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> From: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxx>

This bit breaks ia64 build:

> +
> +/**
> + * acpi_idle_play_dead - enters an ACPI state for long-term idle (i.e. off-lining)
> + * @dev: the target CPU
> + * @index: the index of suggested state
> + */
> +static int acpi_idle_play_dead(struct cpuidle_device *dev, int index)
> +{
> +       struct cpuidle_state_usage *state_usage = &dev->states_usage[index];
> +       struct acpi_processor_cx *cx = cpuidle_get_statedata(state_usage);
> +
> +       ACPI_FLUSH_CPU_CACHE();
> +
> +       while (1) {
> +
> +               if (cx->entry_method == ACPI_CSTATE_HALT)
> +                       halt();
> +               else if (cx->entry_method == ACPI_CSTATE_SYSTEMIO) {
> +                       inb(cx->address);
> +                       /* See comment in acpi_idle_do_entry() */
> +                       inl(acpi_gbl_FADT.xpm_timer_block.address);
> +               } else
> +                       return -ENODEV;
> +       }

drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c: In function 'acpi_idle_play_dead':
drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c:789: error: implicit declaration of
function 'halt'

So the initial compiler complaint is just about "halt()" - but those "inb()" and
"inl()" parts don't look very ia64 compatible either.

-Tony
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/