On Thursday 10 April 2008, Jerone Young wrote:
> Well it could be this simple. But the current code leaves a lot more
> room to add different type waits or spins if need be (if they are ever
> needed ... though none off the top of my head at the moment)...but it
> does allow you to create another wait state for whatever reason a lot
> easier.
>
> So I really don't think this needs to change. Unless everyone really
> feels that it just has to be.
No, it doesn't need to change, the current patch is entirely correct,
just a little bit more complicated than it needs to be, and I try
not to have code in anticipation of something getting more complicated
in the future, you can always add the complexity at the point where you
need it.
> >
> > static int __init idle_param(char *p)
> > {
> > if (!strcmp(modes[i].name, "spin"))
> > ppc_md.power_save = NULL;
> > }
> > early_param("idle", idle_param);
> >
> > if you statically initialize the ppc_md.power_save function to ppc44x_idle
> > in the platform setup files?
>
> The idea is to not statically initialize ppc_md.power_save to
> ppc44x_idle in each platform setup file.
>
Why not? Unlike the platform_initcall, it wouldn't cost anything and your
current code has the same effect in the end, but in a less obvious way.
Arnd <><
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
