[PATCH v3 0/4] Generalize fncpy availability
From: Sudeep Holla <hidden>
Date: 2017-06-20 16:54:48
Also in:
linux-arch, linux-omap, lkml
On 20/06/17 17:20, Florian Fainelli wrote:
On 06/20/2017 02:10 AM, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:quoted
[+Sudeep] On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 10:32:38AM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote:quoted
On 06/19/2017 05:24 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:quoted
On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 05:07:40PM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote:quoted
Hi all,Hi Florian,quoted
This patch series makes ARM's fncpy() implementation more generic (dropping the Thumb-specifics) and available in an asm-generic header file. Tested on a Broadcom ARM64 STB platform with code that is written to SRAM. Changes in v3 (thanks Doug!): - correct include guard names in asm-generic/fncpy.h to __ASM_FNCPY_H - utilize Kbuild to provide the fncpy.h header on ARM64 Changes in v2: - leave the ARM implementation where it is - make the generic truly generic (no) This is helpful in making SoC-specific power management code become true drivers that can be shared between different architectures. Could you elaborate on what this is needed for?Several uses cases come to mind: - it could be used as a trampoline code prior to entering S2 for systems that do not support PSCI 1.0I think S2 here means PM_SUSPEND_MEM. It is very wrong to manage power states through platform specific hooks on PSCI based systems, consider upgrading to PSCI 1.0 please (or implement PSCI CPU_SUSPEND power states that allow to achieve same power savings as PM_SUSPEND_MEM by just entering suspend-to-idle).S2 is PM_SUSPEND_STANDBY and S3 is PM_SUSPEND_MEM, at least that how I read it. I would rather we update to PSCI 1.0 (at least) to properly support SYSTEM_SUSPEND rather than retrofitting a system-wide suspend state into CPU_SUSPEND since that seems wrong.
This has been discussed multiple times in the past. No one has come back with strong reason to add that to the PSCI SYSTEM_SUSPEND API. Care to explain the difference between PM_SUSPEND_STANDBY and S3 is PM_SUSPEND_MEM on your platform. And why it can't be achieved with suspend-to-idle ? You can always report any issue with PSCI specification at errata at arm.com as mentioned in the document. -- Regards, Sudeep