On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 06:22:46PM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 03, 2015 at 01:29:35PM +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> > diff --git a/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-arm64.c
> > b/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-arm64.c
> > index 0cea244..6ef291c7 100644
> > --- a/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-arm64.c
> > +++ b/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-arm64.c
> > @@ -110,7 +110,7 @@ static int __init arm64_idle_init(void)
> > * idle states suspend back-end specific data
> > */
> > for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
> > - ret = cpu_init_idle(cpu);
> > + ret = arm_cpuidle_init(cpu);
>
> Same nitpick here about dropping the arm_ prefix (though here we already
> have a cpuidle_init).
Actually, a question, probably for Lorenzo - why do we need to call
cpu_init_idle() from the driver? Is there any dependency on what the
driver had done before this call? If not, I suggest a core_initcall() in
the arch code for cpu_init_idle(). At a quick look through the code, the
back-end can be initialised on its own.
--
Catalin
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
