[v5,5/5] arm: exynos: Add MCPM call-back functions

Commit Message

Kim Kukjin May 27, 2014, 11:39 a.m. UTC

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...

 	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)

Thanks,
Kukjin

Comments

Kim Kukjin May 27, 2014, 3:17 p.m. UTC | #1

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

Patch

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;