From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752449AbcFOFlL (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Jun 2016 01:41:11 -0400 Received: from ozlabs.org ([103.22.144.67]:47619 "EHLO ozlabs.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750717AbcFOFlK (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Jun 2016 01:41:10 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1465404871-5406-8-git-send-email-shreyas@linux.vnet.ibm.com> To: "Shreyas B. Prabhu" From: Michael Ellerman Cc: ego@linux.vnet.ibm.com, mikey@neuling.org, benh@au1.ibm.com, "Shreyas B. Prabhu" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, maddy@linux.vnet.ibm.com, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org Subject: Re: [v6, 07/11] powerpc/powernv: set power_save func after the idle states are initialized Message-Id: <3rTwNj07nPz9t1J@ozlabs.org> Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 15:41:08 +1000 (AEST) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2016-08-06 at 16:54:27 UTC, "Shreyas B. Prabhu" wrote: > pnv_init_idle_states discovers supported idle states from the > device tree and does the required initialization. Set power_save > function pointer only after this initialization is done This looks like a bug fix? Or is this not a concern in practice for some reason (and if so what is that reason)? cheers