On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 01:38:10PM -0700, Tom Rini wrote:

On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 04:25:57PM -0400, Dan Malek wrote:

quoted

Tom Rini wrote:

quoted

I'm not totally sure if it's better to do it this way, or to not provide
a default power_save(), so that if we don't set pm_idle to something, we
just never call power_save() (as opposed to a call, check for a bit &
return).  Comments?

I think whether we force everything to have a power_save() function,
even if it is empty, or initialize a pointer and have an indirect call
doesn't make much difference.  What does make a difference, is there could
be power save functions that are unique to a board.  Some processors have
power save options that can cause a lower frequency clock to be used which
will affect external devices.  In such cases, the devices on a board may
need some adjustment when these power save modes are entered/exited.

Well, this gets us part of the way there.  This allows for the
power_save() functionalility to be totally overridden.

And in the case of CONFIG_6xx, if the assignment is moved above the call
to platform_init(), it's even easier to override, if needed, so I've
made that change locally.

--
Tom Rini (TR1265)
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/

** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/