[RFC/PATCH] idle loop changes

Tom Rini trini at kernel.crashing.org
Thu Aug 1 06:38:10 EST 2002

On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 04:25:57PM -0400, Dan Malek wrote:
> Tom Rini wrote:
> >I'm not totally sure if it's better to do it this way, or to not provide
> >a default power_save(), so that if we don't set pm_idle to something, we
> >just never call power_save() (as opposed to a call, check for a bit &
> >return).  Comments?
> I think whether we force everything to have a power_save() function,
> even if it is empty, or initialize a pointer and have an indirect call
> doesn't make much difference.  What does make a difference, is there could
> be power save functions that are unique to a board.  Some processors have
> power save options that can cause a lower frequency clock to be used which
> will affect external devices.  In such cases, the devices on a board may
> need some adjustment when these power save modes are entered/exited.

Well, this gets us part of the way there.  This allows for the
power_save() functionalility to be totally overridden.  For things such
as modifiying the clock, which may require additional device changes, I
think that falls in as another problem, but this should allow for that
problem to be taken care of.

Tom Rini (TR1265)

** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

More information about the Linuxppc-dev mailing list