On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 02:18:22AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > 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.
That piece of code came across from the platforms/pasemi version, where we for a while had more than two kinds of idle loops (doze/nap/sleep/rvwinkle). Turns out doze does well enough that the others weren't really needed so I never submitted support for the deeper sleep modes. -Olof _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
