Re: Should SPARC use cpuidle?

[Sam Ravnborg]

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@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2013 23:27:26 -0500
> Subject: [PATCH] sparc idle: rename pm_idle to sparc_idle
> Reply-To: Len Brown <lenb@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 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@xxxxxxxxx>
> Acked-by: David S. Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Build tested - OK.
Acked-by: Sam Ravnborg <sam@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
--
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/