Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 3 Mar 2011 21:15:13 +0100 | From | Uwe Kleine-König <> | Subject | Re: [PATCHv1] ARM: imx: Add support for low power suspend on MX51. |
| |
On Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 01:45:51PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 01:46:58PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 11:52:42AM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 10:52:38PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > > > > +static int __init mx5_pm_init(void) > > > > > +{ > > > > > + if (cpu_is_mx51()) > > > > > + suspend_set_ops(&mx5_suspend_ops); > > > > I'd prefer to have that called by imx51_init_early. > > > > > > This function name looks fine. As we now have an init_early in the > > > arch hooks, let's keep things called foo_init_early() to that use > > > and not start using 'early' for stuff used from initcalls. > > > > > > Renaming this is a recipe for causing confusion and having grep hit > > > false positives. Please leave it as is. > > It seems you and Thomas both didn't notice the "by" in my sentence. > > Or maybe it's not proper English? The thing I wanted to express is that > > instead of introducing another initcall I prefer that imx51_init_early > > calls mx5_pm_init instead. The name mx5_pm_init is fine for me, though > > imx51_pm_init would still be better. > > Is there a reason to set this really really early? What's that reason > exactly? No there is no reason. If there were a imx51_init this would be the right place. Maybe it's time to implement it. Best regards Uwe
-- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |