Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 12 Feb 2013 20:36:09 +0100 | From | Sam Ravnborg <> | 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@intel.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@kernel.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@intel.com> > Acked-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net> Build tested - OK. Acked-by: Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>
| |