On 6 July 2012 00:27, Rob Herring wrote:
> On 07/05/2012 11:48 AM, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> void __init early_init_dt_add_memory_arch(u64 base, u64 size)
>> {
>> + while (size > 0x8000) {
>> + arm_add_memory(base, 0x8000);
>> + base += 0x8000;
>> +
On Thursday, July 05, 2012, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> The 'enter_dead' function is only used for processor_idle.c
> and the same function is used several times. We fall into the
> same abuse with the multiple callbacks for the same function.
This isn't abuse, mind you. This is a normal practice.
>
On Thursday, July 05, 2012, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> Move this specific flag to the header file.
The patch evidently does more than that.
Is it just a cleanup, or is there a functional reason for doing it?
Rafael
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano
> ---
> drivers/idle/intel_idle.c |8 ---
On Thursday, July 05, 2012, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> We have the state index passed as parameter to the 'enter' function.
> Most of the drivers assign their 'enter' functions several times in
> the cpuidle_state structure, as we have the index, we can delegate
> to the driver to handle their own cal
On Thursday, July 05, 2012, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> When the system is booted with some cpus offline, the idle
> driver is not initialized. When a cpu is set online, the
> acpi code call the intel idle init function. Unfortunately
> this code introduce a dependency between intel_idle and acpi.
>
>
On 07/05/2012 10:38 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thursday, July 05, 2012, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> We have the state index passed as parameter to the 'enter' function.
>> Most of the drivers assign their 'enter' functions several times in
>> the cpuidle_state structure, as we have the index, w
On 07/05/2012 10:40 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thursday, July 05, 2012, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> The 'enter_dead' function is only used for processor_idle.c
>> and the same function is used several times. We fall into the
>> same abuse with the multiple callbacks for the same function.
>
>
On 07/05/2012 10:43 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thursday, July 05, 2012, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> Move this specific flag to the header file.
>
> The patch evidently does more than that.
>
> Is it just a cleanup, or is there a functional reason for doing it?
It is just a cleanup.
Thanks
On 6 July 2012 00:27, Rob Herring wrote:
> I would just change arm_add_memory to use phys_addr_t for the size
> param. This ultimately calls memblock functions which use phys_addr_t
> for sizes.
So I have a patch that does this which basically works. However
there is a bit I'm not sure about. arm
On Fri, Jul 06, 2012 at 07:07:35PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 6 July 2012 00:27, Rob Herring wrote:
> > I would just change arm_add_memory to use phys_addr_t for the size
> > param. This ultimately calls memblock functions which use phys_addr_t
> > for sizes.
>
> So I have a patch that does
On Friday, July 06, 2012, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 07/05/2012 10:38 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 05, 2012, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> >> We have the state index passed as parameter to the 'enter' function.
> >> Most of the drivers assign their 'enter' functions several times in
On Friday, July 06, 2012, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 07/05/2012 10:43 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 05, 2012, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> >> Move this specific flag to the header file.
> >
> > The patch evidently does more than that.
> >
> > Is it just a cleanup, or is there a fu
On Friday, July 06, 2012, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 07/05/2012 10:40 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 05, 2012, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> >> The 'enter_dead' function is only used for processor_idle.c
> >> and the same function is used several times. We fall into the
> >> same abus
13 matches
Mail list logo
