* Re: [PATCH] Use safe_halt() rather than halt() in acpi_idle_play_deay()
[not found] <4f7b27487632dad07@agluck-desktop.sc.intel.com>
@ 2012-04-03 16:52 ` Boris Ostrovsky
2012-04-05 17:43 ` Len Brown
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Boris Ostrovsky @ 2012-04-03 16:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tony Luck; +Cc: Len Brown, linux-acpi, linux-pm, linux-kernel, Len Brown
On 04/03/12 12:37, Luck, Tony: <tony.luck@intel.com wrote:
> ACPI code is shared by arch/x86 and arch/ia64. ia64 doesn't provide a plain
> "halt()" function. Use safe_halt() instead.
>
> Signed-off-by: Tony Luck<tony.luck@intel.com>
>
> ---
>
> E-mail discussion indicated this would be OK. Please check on x86
> before applying.
Tested-by: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@amd.com>
-boris
>
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c b/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c
> index b3447f6..f3decb3 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c
> @@ -786,7 +786,7 @@ static int acpi_idle_play_dead(struct cpuidle_device *dev, int index)
> while (1) {
>
> if (cx->entry_method == ACPI_CSTATE_HALT)
> - halt();
> + safe_halt();
> else if (cx->entry_method == ACPI_CSTATE_SYSTEMIO) {
> inb(cx->address);
> /* See comment in acpi_idle_do_entry() */
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread