Re: [PATCH] soc: tegra: pmc: restrict compilation of suspend-related support to ARM

[Thierry Reding <thierry.reding-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2327 bytes --]

On Wed, Jan 07, 2015 at 06:24:39PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> 07.01.2015 17:33, Thierry Reding пишет:
> > On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 10:36:50PM +0000, Paul Walmsley wrote:
> >>
> >> Tegra SoCs with 64-bit ARM support don't currently support deep CPU
> >> low-power states in mainline Linux.  When this support is added in the
> >> future, it will probably look rather different from the existing
> >> 32-bit ARM support, since the ARM64 maintainers' strong preference is
> >> to use PSCI to implement it.
> >>
> >> So, for the time being, prevent the CPU suspend-related code and data
> >> in the Tegra PMC driver from compiling on ARM64.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Paul Walmsley <paul-DWxLp4Yu+b8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
> >> Signed-off-by: Paul Walmsley <pwalmsley-DDmLM1+adcrQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
> >> Cc: Thierry Reding <treding-DDmLM1+adcrQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
> >> Cc: Allen Martin <amartin-DDmLM1+adcrQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
> >> Cc: Stephen Warren <swarren-DDmLM1+adcrQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
> >> Cc: Alexandre Courbot <gnurou-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
> >> ---
> >> Applies on next-20141209.
> >> Intended for v3.20.
> >> Boot-tested on Tegra124 Jetson TK1 on next-20141209.
> >> Also boot-tested on Tegra132 Norrin FFD on next-20141209 + some unrelated 
> >> patches.
> >>
> >>  drivers/soc/tegra/pmc.c | 7 +++++--
> >>  include/soc/tegra/pm.h  | 2 +-
> >>  2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > 
> > On second thought, I decided to apply this as-is.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Thierry
> > 
> 
> Oh, I haven't noticed this patch before...
> 
> I sent patch fixing tegra20 suspend bug [
> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/423778/ ] and it will obviously conflict with
> this one.
> For now there is no feedback for my suspend bug patch (other than for V1), but,
> if it's fine, I think it would be easier to rebase Paul's patch on top of it.
> Any other suggestions?

I don't like changing this back to syscore_ops since it makes things
less easier to follow. I also don't think that using PMC_SCRATCH41 for
two different purposes is a good thing. There are a couple of
suggestions in my reply to your original patch. Could you investigate
whether any of those can be used to fix this instead?

Thierry

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]