Thread (170 messages) 170 messages, 19 authors, 2012-09-16

Re: [PATCH v2 07/31] arm64: Process management

From: Olof Johansson <hidden>
Date: 2012-09-16 00:30:06
Also in: linux-arm-kernel, lkml

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 06:33:52PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 12:50:13AM +0100, Olof Johansson wrote:
quoted
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 06:52:08PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
quoted
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..c4a4e1c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c
@@ -0,0 +1,416 @@
[...]
quoted
+/*
+ * Function pointers to optional machine specific functions
+ */
+void (*pm_power_off)(void);
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(pm_power_off);
+
+void (*pm_restart)(const char *cmd);
+EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pm_restart);
[...]
quoted
+void (*pm_idle)(void) = default_idle;
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(pm_idle);
Does it really make sense to export these to modules?
Changed them to _GPL now but we may still want them exported to modules.
Who knows, we may just have the SoC code in a loadable module (from
initramfs).
Ok, keeping the option open for that makes some sense.
quoted
I find the powerpc way of having a machine descriptor structure with these
(and other) function pointers in it a bit cleaner, since it gives you
one place to plug it all in. I'd recommend that you consider doing that
here as well, for these three and potentially other cases in the future.

(See arch/powerpc/include/asm/machdep.h, struct machdep_calls).
At some point we may add them but currently I want the SoC code to be
minimal.
It's not about the size of the code, it's about having one place where
the SoC divergence is exposed instead of adding hooks here and there. But
agreed, it could be moved to over time.


-Olof
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help