[PATCH 5/7] at91 : fix dirty hack for the selfrefresh function

Rob Lee rob.lee at linaro.org
Thu Jan 12 19:38:01 EST 2012

On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
<linux at arm.linux.org.uk> wrote:

> Okay, that makes sense (because everything but rm9200 branches out to
> one of the cpu idle functions.)
> It also supports my second idea described in
> http://lists.arm.linux.org.uk/lurker/message/20120109.144443.3626e5a6.en.html
> See the paragraph starting "So, what I suggest instead" at that URL and
> following text.
> The reason I think this is the best solution is:
> (a) we move the CPU dependencies into each CPU file
> (b) we localize the quirks needed for each CPU into its own specific code
> (c) we can select at run time between the various standby functions
> These are all AT91 specific wins.  What it also gets us is _much_ less
> exported code from arch/arm/mach-at91 when the CPU idle stuff moves out,
> reducing it down to just a mere function pointer, and, because the AT91
> specific idle stuff is hidden behind this it potentially opens the door
> towards some consolidation in this area between different SoCs.

Apologies if this is a dumb question, but for the arch/arm/mach-at91
function pointer that needs to be exported, what is the recommended
method for exporting it to a file that needs it in drivers/cpuidle?

More information about the linux-arm-kernel mailing list