>-----Original Message----- >From: Kevin Hilman [mailto:khilman@xxxxxxxxxx] >Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 10:51 AM >To: Pallipadi, Venkatesh >Cc: Len Brown; ACPI Devel Maling List >Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH] CPUidle: compile fix for non-x86 > >"Pallipadi, Venkatesh" <venkatesh.pallipadi@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >>> Wrap cpu_idle_wait() in an x86 #ifdef since it's x86 only. >>> Signed-off-by: Kevin Hilman <khilman@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c b/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c >>> index d2fabe7..4d0f9b0 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c >>> +++ b/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c >>> @@ -82,7 +82,9 @@ void cpuidle_uninstall_idle_handler(void) >>> { >>> if (enabled_devices && (pm_idle != pm_idle_old)) { >>> pm_idle = pm_idle_old; >>> +#ifdef CONFIG_X86 >>> cpu_idle_wait(); >>> +#endif >>> >> >> The archs that do not have cpu_idle_wait() and has more than one CPU >> will need something equivalent to cpu_idle_wait() to kick >all other CPUs >> out of idle loop. >> The reason being we do not want another CPU to be in idle >loop that is >> being uninstalled here. >> >> Do you have more than one logical CPU on your platform? > >No, I'm testing on a UP ARM-based platform (TI OMAP.) > >Maybe #ifdef CONFIG_SMP is the right thing instead of #ifdef >CONFIG_X86? > Yes. Something like below seems better. #if !defined(CONFIG_SMP) #define cpuidle_kick_cpus() do{}while (0) #elif defined(CONFIG_X86) #define cpuidle_kick_cpus() cpu_idle_wait() #else # error "Arch needs cpu_idle_wait() equivalent here" #endif Thanks, Venki - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
