[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1503370.EB259eFnzi@ws-stein>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 10:30:55 +0200
From: Alexander Stein <alexander.stein@...tec-electronic.com>
To: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...e-electrons.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@....com>,
Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>,
Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] ARM: at91: pm: switch to the PIE infrastructure
On Wednesday 29 June 2016 09:57:14, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> On 29/06/2016 at 08:12:21 +0200, Alexander Stein wrote :
> > > +#if defined(CONFIG_CPU_V7)
> > > + dsb();
> > > + wfi();
> > > +#else
> > > + asm volatile ("mcr p15, 0, %0, c7, c0, 4" \
> > > + : : "r" (0) : "memory");
> > > +#endif
> >
> > Why not defining wfi() for __LINUX_ARM_ARCH__ < 7 as it is done for dsb()
> > and friends in arch/arm/include/asm/barrier.h? So you can get rid of that
> > #if completly.
>
> Well, Russell said it was not useful because "there's no architected WFI
> instruction which doesn't have CPU specific issues (hence why we have
> cpu_do_idle() to abstract that)"
Wouldn't you suffer from this here as well? Anyway, the inline assembly above
is what is actually wfi but using CP15. I checked several proc-*.S in do_idle
and they all have
> "mcr p15, 0, r0, c7, c0, 4 @ Wait for interrupt"
at some point. so this inline assembly could actually be implemented on wfi()
macro.
Best regards,
Alexander
Powered by blists - more mailing lists