I was going though some old 4xx kernels I have and found an
implimentation of idle.c that had support for 4xx. I believe the reason
it never made is out was the hacking we did to make it work. So I
propose that we modify the kernel/Makefile to use ppc4xx_idel.o instead
of idle.o when 4xx is configured. That way we have a clean
implimentation for 4xx idle functions and not touch the generic ppc idle
file. The function names would not change.
Armin
** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
akuster wrote:
I was going though some old 4xx kernels I have and found an
implimentation of idle.c that had support for 4xx. I believe the reason
it never made is out was the hacking we did to make it work. So I
propose that we modify the kernel/Makefile to use ppc4xx_idel.o instead
of idle.o when 4xx is configured. That way we have a clean
implimentation for 4xx idle functions and not touch the generic ppc idle
file. The function names would not change.
Rather than replace the whole idle loop, I would allow for
sub-arch/processor specific code in the idle loop. Perhaps move the
power_save routine into the platform code?
Armin
** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
Matthew Locke wrote:
Rather than replace the whole idle loop, I would allow for
sub-arch/processor specific code in the idle loop. Perhaps move the
power_save routine into the platform code?
This sounds like a good idea if we could use
if( ppc_md.powersave != NULL)
ppc_md.powersave();
If it is determined that calling power_save() which is resides in an
arch/processor specific file then we are talking about many files being
hit. and the current power_save seems to common for many other ppc
platforms other than 4xx & 8xx
armin
** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/