[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140220103731.GB15994@e102568-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 10:37:31 +0000
From: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>
To: Russ Dill <Russ.Dill@...com>
Cc: Sebastian Capella <sebastian.capella@...aro.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
"linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org" <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
Nicolas Pitre <nico@...aro.org>,
Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@...com>,
Will Deacon <Will.Deacon@....com>,
Jonathan Austin <Jonathan.Austin@....com>,
Catalin Marinas <Catalin.Marinas@....com>,
Uwe Kleine-K?nig <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v1 3/3] ARM hibernation / suspend-to-disk
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 07:10:31PM +0000, Russ Dill wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 02/19/2014 08:12 AM, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
>
> + * https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/96442/
>
I am guessing the snippets of code your comments refer to.
> I think the idea here is to get the CPU into a state so that later
> when we resume from the resume kernel, the actual CPU state matches
> the state we have in kernel. The main thing flush_thread does is clear
> out any and all FP state.
Which has already been saved through syscore_suspend()....
> The may be part of the patchset that is OBE.
It has to be updated then.
> cpu_resume makes many assumptions about the state of the state of the
> CPU, the primary being that the MMU is disabled, but also that all
> caches and IRQs are disabled. soft_restart does all this for us.
>
>
>
> ah, you are saying just return from __swsusp_arch_save_image and allow
> cpu_suspend_abort to be called, placing the result of swsusp_save
> somewhere else. This may work and would reduce the complexity of the
> code slightly.
Yes. Basically you are doing a soft reboot just to return 0.
> This is taken from the previous iteration of the patchset, I think the
> comment is OBE.
Updated it please then.
> But this is still required to select the right mapping for our copying.
/me confused. Please describe what switching to idmap is meant to
achieve. In the patch above the copied swapper pgdir is not even used, I
would like to understand why this is done.
> I don't remember why I needed to prevent gcc from manipulating the
> stack here.
That's not a good reason to mark a function with attr __naked. If it is
needed we leave it there, if it is not it has to go.
> This is another holdover from previous patch versions that may be OBE.
See above.
Lorenzo
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists