Re: [PATCH] Use safe_halt() rather than halt() in acpi_idle_play_deay()

[Boris Ostrovsky]

On 04/03/12 12:37, Luck, Tony: <tony.luck@xxxxxxxxx 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@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> ---
>
> E-mail discussion indicated this would be OK. Please check on x86
> before applying.

Tested-by: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxx>

-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() */


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/