On 07/03/2013 05:52 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
On 07/03/2013 07:29:43 AM, Tudor Laurentiu wrote:
On 07/02/2013 08:55 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
On 07/02/2013 07:46:29 AM, Laurentiu Tudor wrote:
- insts = of_get_property(hyper_node, "hcall-instructions", &len);
- if (!insts)
- return -ENODEV;
+#if !defined(CONFIG_64BIT) || defined(CONFIG_PPC_BOOK3E_64)
+ if (of_get_flat_dt_prop(node, "has-idle", NULL))
+ ppc_md.power_save = epapr_ev_idle;
+#endif
Why are you doing this before processing hcall-instructions?
Nothing of importance. The code seemed more clear to me.
It seems wrong to expose epapr_ev_idle to ppc_md before the hcall has
been patched in, even if you don't expect to actually go idle at this
point.
Ah, now I understand your concerns. I've submitted a [v3] restoring the
original ordering.
---
Best Regards, Laurentiu
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
