On 05/27/14 20:39, Kukjin Kim wrote:
Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Monday 05 May 2014, Abhilash Kesavan wrote:
+static const struct mcpm_platform_ops exynos_power_ops = {
+ .power_up = exynos_power_up,
+ .power_down = exynos_power_down,
+ .power_down_finish = exynos_power_down_finish,
+};
I'm getting a build error in linux-next because there is
no .power_down_finish
member in mcpm_platform_ops here.
Yeah, commit 166aaf39 ("ARM: 8029/1: mcpm: Rename the power_down_finish()
functions to be less confusing") changed the name to
wait_for_cpu_powerdown...
So need to change it accordingly...
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/mcpm-exynos.c
b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/mcpm-exynos.c
index 1ac618c..34c4e6f 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/mcpm-exynos.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/mcpm-exynos.c
@@ -235,7 +235,7 @@ static void exynos_power_down(void)
/* Not dead at this point? Let our caller cope. */
}
-static int exynos_power_down_finish(unsigned int cpu, unsigned int cluster)
+static int exynos_wait_for_powerdown(unsigned int cpu, unsigned int
cluster)
{
unsigned int tries = 100;
unsigned int cpunr = cpu + (cluster * EXYNOS5420_CPUS_PER_CLUSTER);
@@ -261,7 +261,7 @@ static int exynos_power_down_finish(unsigned int cpu,
unsigned int cluster)
static const struct mcpm_platform_ops exynos_power_ops = {
.power_up = exynos_power_up,
.power_down = exynos_power_down,
- .power_down_finish = exynos_power_down_finish,
+ .wait_for_powerdown = exynos_wait_for_powerdown,
};
static void __init exynos_mcpm_usage_count_init(void)
Arnd,
Fixed with above patch.
So I hope it should be fine with tomorrow -next tree.
Thanks,
Kukjin
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
