linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 18/19] ARM: at91: suspend both memory controllers on at91sam9263

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20130125154219.GM7360@game.jcrosoft.org>
Date:	Fri, 25 Jan 2013 16:42:19 +0100
From:	Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@...osoft.com>
To:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:	linux-arm-kernel@...t.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...el.com>,
	Andrew Victor <linux@...im.org.za>,
	Albin Tonnerre <albin.tonnerre@...e-electrons.com>,
	Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 18/19] ARM: at91: suspend both memory controllers on
 at91sam9263

On 14:14 Fri 25 Jan     , Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> For the past three years, we have had a #warning in
> mach-at91 about the sdram_selfrefresh_enable or
> at91sam9_standby functions possibly not working on
> at91sam9263. In the meantime a function was added
> to do the right thing on at91sam9g45, which looks like
> it should also work on '9263.
> 
> This patch blindly removes the warning and changes the
> at91sam9263 to use the same code at at91sam9g45, which
> may or may not be the right solution. If it is not,
> maybe someone could provide a better fix.
it's not

the 9g45 use DDR Controler where the 9263 use a SDRAM controler

Best Regards,
J.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
> Cc: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...el.com>
> Cc: Jean-Christophe Plagniol-Villard <plagnioj@...osoft.com>
> Cc: Andrew Victor <linux@...im.org.za>
> Cc: Albin Tonnerre <albin.tonnerre@...e-electrons.com>
> Cc: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
> ---
>  arch/arm/mach-at91/cpuidle.c | 2 +-
>  arch/arm/mach-at91/pm.c      | 2 +-
>  arch/arm/mach-at91/pm.h      | 8 --------
>  3 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-at91/cpuidle.c b/arch/arm/mach-at91/cpuidle.c
> index 0c63815..208d486 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-at91/cpuidle.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-at91/cpuidle.c
> @@ -36,7 +36,7 @@ static int at91_enter_idle(struct cpuidle_device *dev,
>  {
>  	if (cpu_is_at91rm9200())
>  		at91rm9200_standby();
> -	else if (cpu_is_at91sam9g45())
> +	else if (cpu_is_at91sam9g45() || cpu_is_at91sam9263())
>  		at91sam9g45_standby();
>  	else
>  		at91sam9_standby();
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-at91/pm.c b/arch/arm/mach-at91/pm.c
> index adb6db8..f6bd4fa 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-at91/pm.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-at91/pm.c
> @@ -265,7 +265,7 @@ static int at91_pm_enter(suspend_state_t state)
>  			 */
>  			if (cpu_is_at91rm9200())
>  				at91rm9200_standby();
> -			else if (cpu_is_at91sam9g45())
> +			else if (cpu_is_at91sam9g45() || cpu_is_at91sam9263())
>  				at91sam9g45_standby();
>  			else
>  				at91sam9_standby();
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-at91/pm.h b/arch/arm/mach-at91/pm.h
> index 38f467c..5252216 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-at91/pm.h
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-at91/pm.h
> @@ -70,14 +70,6 @@ static inline void at91sam9g45_standby(void)
>  	at91_ramc_write(1, AT91_DDRSDRC_LPR, saved_lpr1);
>  }
>  
> -#ifdef CONFIG_SOC_AT91SAM9263
> -/*
> - * FIXME either or both the SDRAM controllers (EB0, EB1) might be in use;
> - * handle those cases both here and in the Suspend-To-RAM support.
> - */
> -#warning Assuming EB1 SDRAM controller is *NOT* used
> -#endif
> -
>  static inline void at91sam9_standby(void)
>  {
>  	u32 saved_lpr, lpr;
> -- 
> 1.8.0
> 
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/