On 03/13/2015 07:21 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
On Tue, Mar 03, 2015 at 01:29:34PM +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
Call the common ARM/ARM64 'arm_cpuidle_suspend' instead of cpu_suspend function
which is specific to ARM64.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-arm64.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-arm64.c b/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-arm64.c
index 39a2c62..0cea244 100644
--- a/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-arm64.c
+++ b/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-arm64.c
@@ -49,7 +49,7 @@ static int arm64_enter_idle_state(struct cpuidle_device *dev,
* call the CPU ops suspend protocol with idle index as a
* parameter.
*/
- ret = cpu_suspend(idx);
+ arm_cpuidle_suspend(idx);
Nitpick: why don't we just rename the arm one cpuidle_suspend()?
I don't have a strong opinion on that. Actually, the cpuidle_ prefix is
used by the arch agnostic code in drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c.
If Rafael agrees on changing it to this function name, I am ok also.
--
<http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog
--
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
