On 16:18 Mon 14 Oct , Daniel Lezcano wrote:
On 10/14/2013 04:04 PM, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote:
On 17:51 Sat 12 Oct , Daniel Lezcano wrote:
Use the platform driver model to separate the cpuidle specific code from the low level pm code. It allows to remove the dependency between these two components.
Tested-on usb-a9263 (at91sam9263)
Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano daniel.lezcano@linaro.org
arch/arm/mach-at91/cpuidle.c | 29 +++++++++++++++-------------- arch/arm/mach-at91/pm.c | 16 +++++++++++++++- 2 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-at91/cpuidle.c b/arch/arm/mach-at91/cpuidle.c index 4ec6a6d..6cdc76d 100644 --- a/arch/arm/mach-at91/cpuidle.c +++ b/arch/arm/mach-at91/cpuidle.c @@ -21,26 +21,17 @@ #include <linux/export.h> #include <asm/proc-fns.h> #include <asm/cpuidle.h> -#include <mach/cpu.h>
-#include "pm.h"
#define AT91_MAX_STATES 2
+static void (*at91_standby)(void);
/* Actual code that puts the SoC in different idle states */ static int at91_enter_idle(struct cpuidle_device *dev, struct cpuidle_driver *drv, int index) {
- if (cpu_is_at91rm9200())
at91rm9200_standby();- else if (cpu_is_at91sam9g45())
at91sam9g45_standby();- else if (cpu_is_at91sam9263())
at91sam9263_standby();- else
at91sam9_standby();
- at91_standby(); return index;
}
@@ -60,9 +51,19 @@ static struct cpuidle_driver at91_idle_driver = { };
/* Initialize CPU idle by registering the idle states */ -static int __init at91_init_cpuidle(void) +static int __init at91_cpuidle_probe(struct platform_device *dev) {
- at91_standby = (void *)(dev->dev.platform_data);
- return cpuidle_register(&at91_idle_driver, NULL);
}
-device_initcall(at91_init_cpuidle); +static struct platform_driver at91_cpuidle_driver = {
- .driver = {
.name = "cpuidle-at91",.owner = THIS_MODULE,- },
- .probe = at91_cpuidle_probe,
+};
+module_platform_driver(at91_cpuidle_driver); diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-at91/pm.c b/arch/arm/mach-at91/pm.c index 15afb5d..debdbf8 100644 --- a/arch/arm/mach-at91/pm.c +++ b/arch/arm/mach-at91/pm.c @@ -314,6 +314,10 @@ static const struct platform_suspend_ops at91_pm_ops = { .end = at91_pm_end, };
+static struct platform_device at91_cpuidle_device = {
- .name = "cpuidle-at91",
+};
static int __init at91_pm_init(void) { #ifdef CONFIG_AT91_SLOW_CLOCK @@ -323,8 +327,18 @@ static int __init at91_pm_init(void) pr_info("AT91: Power Management%s\n", (slow_clock ? " (with slow clock mode)" : ""));
/* AT91RM9200 SDRAM low-power mode cannot be used with self-refresh. */
- if (cpu_is_at91rm9200())
- if (cpu_is_at91rm9200()) {
at91_cpuidle_device.dev.platform_data = at91rm9200_standby;- } else if (cpu_is_at91sam9g45()) {
at91_cpuidle_device.dev.platform_data = at91sam9g45_standby;- } else if (cpu_is_at91sam9263()) {
at91_cpuidle_device.dev.platform_data = at91sam9263_standby;- } else {
at91_cpuidle_device.dev.platform_data = at91sam9_standby;no this is too dangerous when adding new SoC
you must list the supported SoC
and I prefer to move this code to the SoC init structure
Do you mean register the platform_device in eg. at91rm9200_initialize with the right platform data ?
yes as example
Best Regards, J.
so we can drop the if/else if/elsee
and drop the issue of adding new and the arch_initcall
Best Regards, J.
}
platform_device_register(&at91_cpuidle_device);
suspend_set_ops(&at91_pm_ops);
-- 1.7.9.5
-- 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